Teacher and Principal Effectiveness

A key requirement for states requesting a waiver for the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and for states receiving Race to the Top (RTTT) funds is the adoption, development and implementation of teacher/principal evaluation and support systems that improve the effectiveness of instruction.

Kentucky has been methodical in our development of the evaluation and support systems. Through the excellent work of the Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Steering Committees, we are very close to the field test of the multiple measures of the system and very close to the deployment of the support system (the Continuous Instructional Improvement Technology System, or CIITS).

I find it ironic that many states who received the first and second rounds of RTTT funding are struggling with development and implementation of the teacher/principal evaluation and support systems -- just this week I read of the struggles in New York ($700 million from RTTT), Tennessee ($501 million from RTTT) and Hawaii ($74.9 million from RTTT) -- while Kentucky has moved ahead with little to no funds available for the work. This is a remarkable testament to the dedication and collaboration between teachers, principals, parents, administrators and Kentucky Department of Education staff in focusing on students.

As we begin the field test of the teacher/principal evaluation system in February and roll out the formative assessment and professional development components of the CIITS system in coming weeks, I thought I would highlight the specifics of the NCLB waiver requirements with regard to teacher evaluation systems.

Highlights from ESEA Flexibility document from U.S. Department of Education, 9/23/2011

Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership – page 5

To receive this flexibility, an SEA and each LEA must commit to develop, adopt, pilot, and implement, with the involvement of teachers and principals, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that: (1) will be used for continual improvement of instruction; (2) meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three performance levels; (3) use multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, including as a significant factor data on student growth for all students (including English Learners and students with disabilities), and other measures of professional practice (which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources, such as observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher portfolios, and student and parent surveys); (4) evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis; (5) provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback that identifies needs and guides professional development; and (6) will be used to inform personnel decisions.

Student growth is defined on page 9 of the same document – the change in achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. For the purpose of this definition, student achievement means grades and subjects required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3). State assessments of reading and math meet this requirement. Also, a local education agency (LEA) may use other measures of student learning such as pre-tests, end-of-course exams, performance-based assessments, student learning objectives, performance on English-language learner assessments and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

The waiver requires the Kentucky Board of Education to adopt the guidelines for the evaluation system by June 2012. The full system must be in place by the 2014-15 school year. Our delivery plan currently has the field test in spring 2012, full state pilot in 2012-13 and statewide implementation in 2013-14. Districts will always have the option pursuant to KRS 156.557 to develop local evaluation systems that meet state education agency guidelines.

I want to personally thank the members of our Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Steering Committees for their hard work and dedication to students and professional growth of all certified staff in Kentucky.

Finding ways to help more students succeed

Someone asked me this week if I ever get discouraged. The answer is, that after 38 years in the education profession, I often get discouraged. However, it never lasts more than a few seconds. I quickly come back to the mission and that is to help more children be successful.

I heard a speaker once ask the audience, “What is your purpose in life?” He then followed up with a method to determine your purpose in life. The speaker asked the audience to consider, “What keeps you awake at night and what wakes you up in the morning?” What keeps me up at night and wakes me in the morning is the desire to help more children reach success. Success in my book is defined as every child graduating from Kentucky schools ready for college and career.

This week, we are finishing up our second-round application for Race to the Top. Charter school legislation would certainly have helped us. However, that door has been closed, so it is time to move on to other doors. We are excited about numerous partnerships with national organizations that will help us move forward with innovations which will help more students be successful.

One exciting innovation is the P20 lab that the University of Kentucky has created. President Lee Todd and Dean Mary John O’Hair have invested significant resources to develop this lab. Also, Kentucky was selected as one of five states to partner with the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Stupski Foundation to create “Next Generation Schools.” We have a team of UK staff and KDE staff meeting this week to discuss the next steps in creating next generation schools.

Another exciting opportunity is the National Council on Education and the Economy. Kentucky is one of eight states collaborating to develop ways that students can “move on when ready” in high school. This partnership will create exciting opportunities to ensure all graduates from Kentucky schools are ready for college and career.

Finally, just when you seem most discouraged you get a call from a superintendent who has visited an early college. Early college blends high school and college in a rigorous yet supportive program, compressing the time it takes to complete a high school diploma and the first two years of college. The superintendent reports seeing students reach success in early college who normally would have not been successful. The excitement of the leaders in our school districts in Kentucky is tremendous.

While Race to the Top is a major funding source for the future of Kentucky school innovation, whether we receive the funding or not is not the most important agenda item. The most important agenda item is finding innovative ways to help more children succeed!

Relationships Crucial to Student Success

In presentations, I often talk about relationships. The example I use was provided by my wife. On Valentine’s Day in 2007 she gave me a book – Change or Die. That usually gets a few laughs from the audience. However, the book really did validate a guiding principle that I have always tried to utilize in any position. Let me tell you more.

In the book, Alan Deutschman talks about heart bypass patients. In study after study, heart bypass patients are told that they must change their diet, exercise and stress levels or they will most certainly die. In study after study, the patients make these changes at the beginning, but within four years, only one out of nine bypass patients have actually continued with the needed changes. I always ask the audience -- if we cannot get heart bypass patients to change knowing that they will most certainly die, then how can we get educators and parents to change to help more children reach success?

Deutschman provides numerous examples of change that did stick. The number-one guiding principle for these successful change initiatives was relationship building. The phrase I always used in my work was that “kids don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” In other words, relationship-building with students, parents, teachers and others is the guiding principle for change. Until you build trust through honest and open communication, you will not be able to change a classroom, school, district or state education system.

A BIG concern of mine is what the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) competition is doing for relationship-building in some states. Tennessee and Delaware were awarded funds in Phase 1, and they were recognized for the strong support they had from all stakeholders. Both states had done good work in building a strong plan and building strong relationships. Kentucky also was one of the higher-scoring states for building relationships and having strong support, but we lacked a plan for charter schools, and our teacher/principal evaluation section needed improvement.

As we move forward in Phase 2 applications, I am seeing major breakdowns in relationships across the nation. Teachers in Florida recently staged a walkout over merit pay legislation that supposedly was intended to help RTTT. Colorado unions and union leaders in numerous states are very concerned about RTTT applications, and many are choosing not to participate or support. Principals and district superintendents across the nation are concerned about low-performing schools’ turnaround strategies and requirements. In other words, relationships are being strained all over the nation.

In Kentucky, I am very much concerned about placing too much strain on relationships. While we will continue to discuss charter schools and teacher/principal evaluation, we must continue to maintain and build relationships with all of our partners. What good would $175 million do if we are unable to implement the strategies in schools across ALL of Kentucky because our partners no longer trust or support the efforts?

However, the core of maintaining relationships should be a focus on the success of children. I want to maintain relationships and create change and innovation. The only way to balance these two is by focusing first on what the change and innovation will mean for the success of children. My promise to all is that we will focus first and foremost on the children, and if the adult needs run in opposition to the needs of children, then that adult relationship may need some additional work and communication.

The next few weeks will be intense, and there will be lots of opportunities for failure and success. Stay tuned!

Assessment Plans for Kentucky

Senate Bill 1 requires development of new standards in language arts, mathematics, science and social studies by December 2010. As of today, we have been able to partner with 48 other states to develop internationally benchmarked standards in language arts and mathematics.

Kentucky was the first state to adopt the standards, and work begins on April 12 to unpack the standards and begin to translate them into teacher-friendly tools that should help guarantee a strong curriculum in every classroom in Kentucky. We also are in conversation with national leaders who are working on science standards; however, we do not anticipate those standards being completed until 2012. Due to the complicated nature of social studies standards, we are continuing to explore possible partnerships with other states.

Our attention now turns to development of summative and formative assessments based on the Common Core Academic Standards. The federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funds provided $350 million for this work. This week, the U.S. Department of Education released guidelines for states who are interested in applying for the funds. There are two categories of funding.

Category 1 addresses states who want to develop assessments in language arts and mathematics for grades 3-8 and high school (one assessment). States may apply for up to $160 million. The guidelines require a minimum of 15 states for a consortium, with five states serving as governing states. States also may work as design states and/or partnering states. In joining a consortium, states agree to implement the assessments, and the assessments would meet all requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Currently, there are two excellent consortia, and Kentucky is a member of both. However, we may only belong to one consortium, and we have to make a decision on membership within the next few weeks. Kentucky teachers would be heavily involved over the next few years in the development of assessment items and field testing the items from other states, regardless of which consortium we join.

The second category for funding is for development of high school course assessments. Again, Kentucky is well-positioned for this work. The Kentucky Board of Education has provided direction for end-of-course assessments. Senate Bill 1 provided end-of-course assessments as an option. Funding from the RTTT grants is up to $30 million. Through our partnership with the National Center on Education and the Economy, we will apply for these funds to assist in the adaption of existing international assessments to meet requirements of the grant.

Based on the guidelines, we believe that Kentucky will be a member of a funded consortium for both grants. However, we will encounter difficulties with Senate Bill 1 deadlines. We are scheduled to have an assessment ready by spring 2012. Under the funding guidelines, the new NCLB common core assessments would not be ready until the 2014-15 school year. The high school end-of-course assessments could be ready as soon as 2012.

Once the General Assembly session ends, we will meet with key legislators and the Interim Joint Committee on Education to seek guidance on the interim period. We hope to have clarity on this issue by the June-July state conferences. So … the good news is that the cost of development should be provided by the Race to the Top funding. The bad news is that the Senate Bill 1 deadlines may be a concern.

Our goal for state assessments is to provide formative assessment items throughout the year that are open-response, problem-solving and higher-order thinking types of assessment. We will provide standard scoring rubrics or allow school districts to develop and validate their own assessments. The summative assessments will be primarily multiple choice and constructed response. We are hoping to have a plan to score regionally and/or locally and provide feedback on assessments in a much shorter period than current practice. Reaching this goal will depend on our ability to gain funding for deployment. We have great leadership at KDE with the Office of Assessment and Accountability’s Associate Commissioner Ken Draut and the assessment team. Couple that with the terrific leadership of the district assessment coordinators, and Kentucky is in great shape for the future.

Why Charter Schools?

As a local superintendent in North Carolina, I was never a big fan of charter schools. I always felt that the charter law in North Carolina did not provide local control and did not focus enough on providing opportunities for children who were not achieving academically. Also, the charter school law in North Carolina has proven to resegregate schools, and in many cases, the more wealthy parents created charter schools that seemed to be exclusive.

However, over the years I have visited many outstanding charter schools across the nation, and I know that programs like Geoffrey Canada’s Promise Academy can close achievement gaps. So, as I came to Kentucky, I remained open about charter schools and have always supported parental choice of schools and programs based on the best interests of children.

Then, the Race to the Top (RTTT) guidelines were introduced, and the charter issue was placed front and center. Since I had been in Kentucky only a few months, it quickly became clear that I could either get superintendent and teacher support, or I might be able to get charter legislation; however, I could not get both.

In December, I met with teachers, school board members and superintendents and made the commitment that our Race to the Top application would not include charter school legislation. We promised to make our best case that school-based decision making (SBDM) councils provided everything that charter schools had and even more.

We did make a strong case on this and other components of the RTTT application. The Kentucky application was very strong -- we placed 9th overall in the scoring. However, when we analyzed the results, we were the only state to receive ZERO points for charter schools. The scorers were very clear that we must have charter school legislation to receive any points in this area. If we had scored the points in this area (32), we would have been the 2nd-highest-rated state and possibly been a first-round recipient.

So, the charter legislation is back on the table. As promised to school board members, teacher organizations and superintendents, the only way I could support charters is with these criteria:
Local boards would serve as the sole authorizing agent.
Teachers do not lose any personnel and collective bargaining rights, if relevant.
Charter schools must first and foremost address closing achievement gaps and meeting needs of children who are not achieving academically.

The Senate passed the legislation along party lines this week. If we had been able to discuss and meet individually with senators, I believe we could have achieved bipartisan support as we did with House Bill 176; however, the end of the session is very hectic, and there is not much time for debate and review.

Now, on to the House, and eventually a conference committee will meet to make the final decision on charter school legislation. My biggest concern will be the loss of superintendent, school board and teacher support for our Race to the Top application. I hope everyone will read the final version of the charter bill and find a very reasonable and practical approach to charters that will provide local boards and superintendents with full control. Also, I hope that educators and community members also will see the tremendous potential for innovation.

Charter schools that focus on dropouts, achievement gaps, early college, virtual learning and other possible innovations to help children achieve at higher levels will be possible. Of course, all of these are currently possible with SBDM councils and creative superintendents.

We are back to the main reason why we need charter legislation – hopefully, to help encourage creativity so more children will be successful. Also, charter legislation represents our best hope to obtain the points we need to receive up to $175 million in federal funds to implement many of the innovations that we hope to see. I wish there were easy answers, but, as with so many things, there are no easy answers.

Charter Schools and Kentucky

As I began working with school districts and teacher associations to develop support for the Kentucky Race to the Top (RTTT) application, I asked them to keep an open mind about charter schools. In most cases, my suggestion was well-received, and most people did keep open minds toward discussion of charter schools and the issues that need to be addressed.

It quickly became apparent to me that we did not have sufficient time to address the charter school issues AND develop a strong Race to the Top application. On December 7, I informed superintendents, teacher leaders and school board chairs that our RTTT application would not include charter schools.

As most of you know, we were able to pass legislation (House Bill 176) to include four turnaround options for low-performing schools, and among those options we did include the ability for a local school board to contract with an Education Management Organization to run a school. This option should help Kentucky with some of the criteria points in the RTTT application.

The question now becomes – What do we do now? The charter school debate has not ended, it has only just begun. My guiding principle with regard to charter schools or any innovation in education is simple. How will the innovation help students learn at higher levels and enable teachers to meet the needs of more students?

The debate moving forward should not be “do we have charter schools or do we not have charter schools.” We should never force ourselves into a corner of either/or. We should avoid the tyranny of OR and focus on the synergy of AND. There are some possible ways that charter school legislation could help improve teaching and learning in Kentucky. That is the solution we should all be looking for, rather than polarizing ourselves into one corner or the other.

The Kentucky Department of Education will be working with legislators and other decision-makers at the state and local levels to engage in a positive and focused discussion on how school boards could utilize some type of charter legislation to enable schools and districts to remove barriers to teaching and learning.

We should be focusing our questions on how a school board could utilize charter legislation to develop innovative programs that focus on mastery and student performance rather than seat time. We should focus the conversations on how school boards could partner with internal and external groups to utilize charter legislation to address the needs of students who are not achieving in traditional settings. We should focus the conversations on what innovations in technology could be utilized in a charter setting to create next-generation schools.

The common theme in all of these questions is the focus on improving teaching and learning with the support of local school boards. My favorite reminder when difficult issues come up is that we need to focus on the children’s needs and not let the adult needs get in the way of our focus. I have every confidence that Kentucky can have this discussion and, in the end, reach agreement on legislation that is in the best interest of the children.

Race to the Top and Charter Schools

During my first few weeks on the job, there have been many conversations and lots of action surrounding the Race to the Top funding. Kentucky has a consulting firm (the Bridgespan Group) that is helping with the application, and we have a number of advisory committees and lots of two-way communication planned to ensure we have the best possible application by the December deadline.

One of the “hot topics” is charter schools. Some think that since Kentucky does not have charter school legislation, we will automatically be eliminated from competition for funding. But, the guidelines only have two non-negotiable items. We must have applied for the stabilization funds, and we must show we do not block linking teacher data to student achievement data. We are okay with both these issues.

The application must address standards, data systems, teacher effectiveness and turnaround schools. The turnaround schools requirement is where the charter school issue arises. However, if you read U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s remarks on the turnaround requirement, you see that President Barack Obama and Sec. Duncan focus on four options for turnaround schools. They are as follows:

Option 1 – Principal and staff start planning in the fall to turn around a low-performing school. Basically, the students stay, and many staff members leave or at least have to reapply.
Option 2 – Staff is replaced, and a charter organization or for-profit management organization is allowed take over the school.
Option 3 – Most of the staff stays, but the school makes major culture changes to the evaluation system, curriculum and instruction, time on learning, and flexibility for budgeting, staffing and calendar. This is the model that Kentucky is well-known for through school-based decision making councils.
Option 4 – Schools are closed, and students are sent to other schools.

The focus of the turnaround schools requirement is on improving student achievement outcomes. That is something everyone in Kentucky can support. We have had experience in Kentucky working with turnaround efforts that we need to build upon.

In my previous experience as a local superintendent, I have worked very well with charter schools. I think Kentucky should keep an open conversation going about the best possible solutions for raising achievement and closing achievement gaps. I feel certain the conversation will include all of the options espoused by Sec. Duncan.