A road map for moving forward

This week, the Interim Joint Education Committee received several reports. For me, two reports were of particular importance. 

The Advance Kentucky team provided an evaluation report for this outstanding program. Advance Kentucky team utilized the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics to answer several research questions including, “Does participation in AP Math, Science, and English courses impact high school success, college remediation rates, and college performance and persistence?” The research study came back with overwhelmingly positive results for Advance Kentucky. It is clear that, when compared to a peer group with similar demographics, Advance Kentucky students: 
     • graduate from high school at higher rates and with higher GPAs
     • show twice the gains from PLAN to ACT
     • go to college at higher rates and take far fewer remedial course 
        once in college
     • earn higher college GPAs as first semester freshmen and return at 
        higher rates second semester

A recent news release highlighted some of the great work that Advance Kentucky and our high schools are doing across the state. I hope a key learning point for the Interim Joint Committee was the return on investment for a program like Advance Kentucky. 

The General Assembly provides funding for a number of programs in Kentucky that are basically flow through funds through either the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) or the Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). Given the continued decline of education funding, it is imperative that our General Assembly look closely at the return on investment of these programs. Some, like Advance Kentucky, are an excellent investment while others that have been funded for 20 plus years do not have the results to show a good return on investment.

Stu Silberman and the Prichard Committee presented a second report to the General Assembly. The Prichard Committee convened a task force on improving teacher effectiveness more than a year ago and the task force recently published a final report; an executive summary is also available. The task force report connects numerous efforts of the Prichard Committee, KDE, CPE, and Education Professional Standards Board in recommendations to the General Assembly. The task force report and recommendations provide an excellent road map in moving forward with recruiting and retaining excellent teachers in Kentucky.

Terry Holliday, Ph.D.
Education Commissioner

NOTE:  I plan on taking some time off over the holidays, so, I will not post a blog for the next two weeks. My blog will return on January 10. Hope you and yours have a great holiday and a happy new year!

Legislative Agenda for 2013

As legislators return next week, I want to ask superintendents, local boards and readers of this blog to contact their local legislators to push for a couple of issues.

1 – Raising the dropout age – I recently sent Governor Beshear a letter supporting this legislation. The legislation is also a priority for the Kentucky Board of Education. I hope readers will review the letter and contact their local legislator to support this important legislation.

2 – Preschool funding – This is a fairly straightforward concept and one that I know local superintendents support. We need to move from the complicated formula that has been used for preschool funding since the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) to a fairer and simpler formula.

3 – Career and Technical Education (CTE) – The Governor, through executive order, merged the Workforce Cabinet CTE program with the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) CTE program and placed the merged program under KDE. We need legislation this term to sustain this merger.

4 – Teacher/Principal Effectiveness – Last session we were able to get legislation through the House and a resolution through the Senate to implement the work of our Teacher/Principal Effectiveness committees. The session adjourned prior to the House and Senate agreeing on a compromise bill. A similar bill will be filed when this session reconvenes and we need strong support from all stakeholders to move the bill through quickly. Failure to move the bill through this term could have a negative impact on federal funds and Race to the Top grants.

Finally, I sent a letter to Governor Beshear that expresses my concern about support for our schools. I hope that readers will take time to review this letter and contact their local legislators to express concern about school funding.

Kentucky has made tremendous progress as evidenced by recent EXPLORE/PLAN scores, AP scores, ACT scores, NAEP scores, and Education Week’s Quality Counts report. However, we will not be able to maintain our progress without some restoration of funds for schools.

I am concerned about the recent announcement by the Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust (KSBIT) and the Kentucky School Boards Association (KSBA) about the unexpected $50-60 million assessment to districts to cover shortfalls and the increased costs for districts that will come as result of having to procure new insurance coverage once KSBIT is closed.

Also, I am concerned that federal sequestration (cut of 9.2 percent) will happen in March with impact seen in the 2013-14 school budgets.

Given that this is not a budget session for our legislators should not deter readers from beginning this conversation with local legislators about additional education funding. We do anticipate discussion at some point, possibly in a special session dealing with tax reform. It is critical that education be a primary consideration of any tax reform discussion.

I hope readers will use the information in my letters to the Governor and this blog as you contact your local legislators.

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.

Update on Teacher Effectiveness and Teacher Evaluation

This past week, there were two major reports published that would be of interest to readers who are following the Kentucky work on development of a teacher effectiveness rubric and teacher evaluation system.

Kentucky began this work as part of the Race to the Top application. We have continued the work; however, the timeline has been altered. We are field-testing the rubric this year, and the Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee is meeting often to revise and edit based on feedback from teachers, principals, superintendents and other stakeholders.

We hope to pilot a teacher effectiveness rubric and multiple evidences during the 2011-12 school year in as many as 50 districts and conduct a full state pilot in the 2012-13 school year.

From the Brookings Brown Center on Education Policy came a report about use of value-added measures in a teacher evaluation system. The report highlighted four areas of confusion about value-added.

* Public or non-public display of the data is a separate debate from whether or not to use value-added.
* Teacher consequences and student consequences from using a value-added component are not always congruent.
* Reliability of value-added measures are about as reliable as other performance measures for high-stakes decisions.
* Value-added not included in an evaluation system usually lowers the reliability of personnel decisions.

While I am not promoting the report, I do believe it offers some important points for consideration by our steering committee. For a copy of the report, visit http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/1117_evaluating_teachers.aspx.

Another interesting report came from the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) - Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers. This report starts by saying the education of teachers in the U.S. needs to be turned upside down. The report recommends a shift away from academic preparation and course work loosely linked to school-based experiences. The report also recommends more clinical practice interwoven with academic content and professional courses. To view the report, visit this link:
http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715

The Kentucky work is progressing slowly, but I believe the final product will be one that all stakeholders can support. Most of all, the product will be one that will help more teachers help more students achieve success.

A Busy Week at KDE

This week, the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) saw much work on several key issues. The Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee, Principal Effectiveness Steering Committee and the Teacher/Principal Working Conditions Survey Committee met to work on proposals to revise teacher and principal evaluation systems in Kentucky.

Why are we working on changes to the evaluation process? In my travels throughout the state, I hear from superintendents, principals and teachers that the current system of evaluation in Kentucky may not be as strong as we need, given the research on the impact of teachers and principals on student learning. Also, the Race to the Top application, Title I reauthorization, federal grants and foundation grants are all focusing on effective teachers and principals. Readers should note that the vocabulary is changing from “highly qualified” to “effective.” Much of the research over the past 10 years has clearly shown the strong correlation between effective teachers and principals and improving student learning results.

What is the timeline for the revisions? Our committees are working slowly to go fast later. In the 2009-10 school year, we had four districts that worked to develop a process for teacher effectiveness. This work was funded through our grant from the Wallace Foundation. Also, based on Wallace Foundation work, Kentucky has been one of the lead states in the nation for the development of principal effectiveness measures. We have 23 districts that have volunteered to help the steering committees this year through field tests of various items from the proposed system of measuring effectiveness.

What are the components of teacher effectiveness? The research around this is mixed; however, there does seem to be agreement that a strong teacher effectiveness system must have multiple measures. In Kentucky, we are looking at student growth, teacher self-assessment, observations, 360-degree assessment, artifacts/evidences and student voice. For principals, there will be similar measures.

The other exciting work this week was the advisory committee for the teacher and principal working conditions survey. More details about this survey will be forthcoming over the next few months. Should readers be interested in learning more about the survey, they may view the work in Maryland at http://www.tellmaryland.org/. Kentucky and Tennessee recently became the 11th and 12th states in the nation, along with several large urban school districts, to use this survey.

The staff at KDE very much appreciates all the teachers, principals, superintendents, college faculty, parents, business leaders and organization leaders who have volunteered their time to work on these very important committees. Readers also may be interested in the presentation I will be making to the Interim Joint Committee on Education at its July 12 meeting in Frankfort. That presentation will be posted on the KDE website at http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Commissioner+of+Education/Commissioner+Hollidays+Presentations/.

Teacher Effectiveness

You can’t pick up an education publication these days without reading an article about teacher effectiveness. Teacher effectiveness is the new buzz word for this decade.

Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) authorization, the focus has been on highly qualified teachers. During the past eight years of NCLB, we have seen many states and districts achieve 99 percent highly qualified teachers. What also happens is that teacher evaluation systems report over 95 percent of teachers at or above standard.

However, graduation rates indicate that children are not successful in school. Apparently, the inconsistency is due to lack of focus on teacher effectiveness. So, we have lots of proponents of tying evaluation to test scores, merit pay, performance pay, value-added and the list goes on.

Many foundations are promoting the teacher effectiveness conversation, and the U.S. Department of Education is focusing Race to the Top and NCLB/ESEA reauthorization on teacher effectiveness. This focus is the right focus; however, I am not so certain that the details are on target.

I read a great article in Education Week recently. The article was by Dr. James Stigler, who is a senior fellow with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. He cautioned readers that we need to rethink teacher accountability before it is too late. The article resonated with me since it had close alignment with the philosophies of W. Edwards Deming. In the article, Dr. Stigler talks about the Japanese model of “lesson study.” This is a highly engaging model where teachers develop common assessments, teach common curriculum, teach on a common calendar and work together to monitor student achievement and study best practices for intervening when students are not successful. Japanese teachers are provided with the time and support to have these professional conversations. In the U.S., we are calling this approach the professional learning community.

The reason I liked this article so much was the relationship to the work I was part of in my former school system. The Iredell-Statesville system in North Carolina was recognized as the 2008 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipient in education. A key reason for the recognition was the level of deployment of professional learning communities and classroom Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles, which are a key component of the Deming philosophy. These cycles very much mirror the Japanese lesson study model. Teachers of same subject met weekly to develop common curriculum, learning targets for students and common assessments and to share best instructional strategies. The student learning results over seven years in the school system documented that the PDSA method worked for all subjects, all grades and all types of students.

While discussions about teacher effectiveness are extremely important, I could never support a system that utilizes only standardized testing to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers. I will support working with teachers and other stakeholders to develop a growth model for teacher effectiveness that has multiple measures. I have appointed a teacher effectiveness steering committee to follow up from our Race to the Top application. This group is comprised of teachers, principals, superintendents and other key stakeholders. I am very excited about their work and look forward to the discussions we will have.

This work is not easy, and it will take several years to develop a valid, reliable and fair system for gauging teacher effectiveness. I also know that we must measure the working conditions within which teachers work. Another Deming philosophy I strongly adhere to is that, in most cases, non-performance and poor results are a direct result of the system and not the people in the system. By measuring working conditions, we can determine at the school, district and state levels what working conditions need to be in place for teachers and principals to be more effective in helping more students succeed. The bottom line for me is that we must DO this work WITH teachers and principals and not just do it TO them.