The future of PGES

During the August Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) meeting, Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) Associate Commissioner Amanda Ellis provided the board with an update on results from the 2014-15 implementation of our Professional Growth and Effectiveness System (PGES). This was the first year that every district implemented the system for teachers and leaders. Also, every local school board implemented the Superintendent Professional Growth and Effectiveness System. In my June 26 blog, I discussed the national perspective on this issue.

The results from Kentucky mirrored those that have been released in most other states. More than 90 percent of our teachers and leaders received ratings of accomplished and exemplary. Some will take this as good news and others will say that Kentucky has wasted five years and significant resources to implement a state evaluation system that has a mismatch between student performance and teacher performance.

The group that calls the PGES a waste of time and resources will point to the student achievement distribution in Kentucky. This distribution shows that slightly more than 50 percent of our students are achieving proficient and distinguished performance on state tests while more than 90 percent of teachers and leaders are receiving the highest ratings of performance.

The Kentucky Board of Education made a key decision to not include the PGES results in the state accountability model for 2015-16. Key reasons for the decision were the concern about the results and concerns about time to implement the system and problems with the technology system used by PGES.

The key question should not focus on the past but on the future. Certainly, the KDE team agreed with KBE that the PGES system was not ready for inclusion in the accountability model. However, it is critical to be clear about the purpose of PGES. The purpose was not to rank and rate teachers. The ranking and rating system was a federal requirement. Most major corporations have learned that evaluation systems that rank and rate do not lead to a more productive and engaged workforce. The basic purpose of the PGES was to promote professional growth and elevate the teaching profession.

Moving forward, I hope the KBE and KDE will focus on a couple of key issues.

Issue #1) – Ask teachers if the feedback they receive from PGES helps them improve their instruction. We know that many of our principals struggle to provide feedback to teachers since the principals may not have the content knowledge in a specific area. However, PGES allows for peer observers and also student feedback. These two sources in addition to the principal could provide excellent suggestions on how to improve. Also, it is very important that Kentucky focus time and effort on training principals on how to provide solid instructional feedback.

Issue #2) – KDE must partner with our universities, leadership training programs and other partners to provide coaching and feedback on how to develop rigorous but fair student growth goals. Every teacher in Kentucky should have student growth goals. Every principal will be evaluated on how well the teachers meet those student growth goals. KBE and KDE should look closely each year at the correlation between student growth goal performance and teacher/principal performance on PGES.

Issue #3) – KDE and districts must address time and technology concerns. The amount of time required of teachers and principals to complete the PGES measures must be manageable. The technology must be user-friendly and be seen as a time saver rather than a time consumer.

Issue #4) – This year the PGES data represents only the tenured teachers who were in their evaluation year cycle. The PGES data did not include statewide data from first year teachers or teachers not in their evaluation cycle year. It is still too early to make any long-term decisions on the future of the PGES system.

Issue #5) – KDE must focus training and support not only at the teacher and principal level, but also at the district level. Too often, central office administrators do not have the capacity to coach principals on how to provide instructional feedback to teachers. There are excellent models in our districts and KDE needs to identify those best practice districts and provide those models to all districts.

If any state in the nation can serve as a model for the implementation of a teacher and leader effectiveness system that improves student learning outcomes, it will be Kentucky. We have all the necessary ingredients: terrific teachers, strong leaders, terrific collaboration among partners and a focus on children.

Hopefully, everyone will give our schools and KDE the time needed to make the necessary adjustments in training and support.

Valuing superintendent input

This week, we had a very lively Superintendent Advisory Council meeting. I really value input from superintendents since they are the primary point of contact between the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) and implementation of Senate Bill 1 (2009) and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver requirements.

During the meeting this week, we spent most of our time discussing the next-generation superintendent standards being developed by the Kentucky Association of School Administrators (KASA). Also, we discussed the expectations for annual summative documentation of local board evaluation of the superintendent.

The Superintendent Advisory Council serves in an advisory role and, during the meeting, the group did offer several recommendations for implementation of new superintendent standards and evaluation procedures. I will go over these recommendations on Monday, April 29, during my monthly superintendent webinar.

There has been a significant amount of confusion and misinformation about the expectations for superintendent evaluation procedures. It is my intent to clarify the procedures in a letter to board chairs and superintendents in late May or June.

Our Kentucky superintendents do a terrific job in spite of increasing budget difficulties. It is my hope that we will be able to align the teacher, principal and superintendent evaluation procedures to drive a model of professional learning and professional growth. Working together, I know we can do this in Kentucky.

Clear direction for improvement

Last Saturday, I gave a short speech at the Kentucky School Boards Association winter conference. A portion of my speech was to recognize the tremendous work of school boards and educators across Kentucky as evidenced by recent rankings by Education Week that put Kentucky in the top 10 states for education policy and results. It is undeniable that Kentucky has made progress in lowering dropout rates, improving student learning outcomes, improving graduation rates and improving college-and career-readiness rates. The vision for our improvements was provided by the Kentucky Education Reform Act in 1990 and more recently by Senate Bill 1 of 2009.


During my speech I also provided clear direction as to improvements that will be made in school board training and superintendent evaluations. I want to provide readers with some insight into the reasons behind these improvements.

1. While most of our local school boards and superintendents are doing a terrific job, there has been evidence recently of inappropriate behaviors and poor fiscal management among some. Given the challenging times that we are in with state and federal budgets, it is extremely important that local school boards and superintendents exercise excellent management of ethics and fiscal responsibility. That is why we will be addressing specific changes in local board training requirements to emphasize ethical and fiscal management training for all board members. 
 
2. With the No Child Left Behind waiver, Kentucky is required to develop new effectiveness and evaluation tools for teachers and principals. It only makes sense that superintendents also share the responsibility of improved effectiveness and evaluation systems.

3. With the passage of Senate Bill 1 in 2009, the subsequent development of the Kentucky Board of Education Unbridled Learning strategic plan and accountability model, and the implementation of the No Child Left Behind waiver, clear delivery targets have been established at the school and district levels for graduation rate, college/career ready rate, student proficiency rate, and student gap group proficiency rates. Eventually, we will add teacher/principal effectiveness rates and program review results. It is very appropriate to expect every school board to include as part of the annual superintendent evaluation process a review of the progress toward the delivery targets.

We are expecting districts to submit plans for teacher and principal evaluation systems by December 2013 with full implementation in 2014-15. Most districts will use the model developed by the state, however, local districts may submit alternative plans. However, the alternative plans must meet the requirements of the NCLB waiver. By adding the requirement that local boards submit the superintendent evaluation process by December 2013, we are ensuring alignment of all evaluation processes in the district to Senate Bill 1 and the NCLB waiver. Local boards may certainly go beyond the minimum expectations of the delivery targets.


In coming weeks, we will provide clarity on the forms that local boards must use in submitting their superintendent evaluation process. Additional requirements in the process will include fiscal management goals and a requirement that the summary statement of the superintendent evaluation be placed in the minutes of the board meeting where the summative evaluation is provided to the superintendent. I would also suggest that any changes in the superintendent contract or salary/benefits be clearly recorded in the board meeting minutes where such action was taken. Several of the recent audits by the state auditor have revealed gaps in the documentation of changes to salary and benefits.


Over the next year, the Kentucky Association of School Administrators will be sharing the excellent work they are doing to develop standards for superintendents. Hopefully, school boards will utilize these standards in the selection, support and evaluation processes for their superintendent.


All of these things working together will ensure Kentucky children are reaching higher levels of achievement. Also, through clear goals and transparency, we will ensure we do not lose the trust of the citizens that we serve.

Collaborative Work to Help the Teaching Profession

This week I was struck by what is happening in Chicago with the teacher strike, contrasted against the collaborative work going on in Kentucky. Over the past few days, Kentucky was very much focused on elevating the teaching profession. The Prichard Committee has launched a task force to look closely at improving teacher effectiveness. This task force has been charged with looking at teacher preparation, professional development, recruiting and retaining great teachers, and supporting teachers. Hats off to Executive Director Stu Silberman and the task force for looking at these issues in a thoughtful way and engaging teachers in the process.

Also this week, I dropped by to visit with my Teacher Advisory Committee, which was working with our professional development task force. This task force is an outgrowth of our selection as a model state to develop guidelines for professional development and support of teachers as they implement the Common Core State Standards. I was excited to see the group working very hard to develop key recommendations for professional development that I hope will in turn provide the framework for legislation for the 2013 session.

Another group that I am working with is the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). This group is developing accreditation standards for teacher preparation programs. I am co-chairing the accountability and public reporting committee. Our challenge is to develop key outcome measures for teacher preparation programs, levels of accreditation, public reporting and transparency guidelines, and annual performance requirements.

The national conversation about teachers and the teaching profession was certainly highlighted through the Chicago teacher strike. One of the key issues leading to the strike was the proposed teacher evaluation system that would include some measure of student performance. In Kentucky, we have been working with teachers and other stakeholders for almost two years to develop a statewide teacher effectiveness system.

The goal of our system is not teacher dismissal but teacher professional growth. In the past, our teacher evaluation systems have been narrowly focused without a lot of feedback and support for teacher professional growth. Our proposed system would greatly improve the feedback that teachers receive during the evaluation cycle and also provide access to the best professional development in the world, customized to meet the needs of the individual teacher and thus meet the needs of students in the teacher’s classroom. I was provided with an early look at our comprehensive software system that will provide teachers and administrators with the tools to bring our proposed system to fruition.

I am thankful to be in Kentucky and working with stakeholders who believe in collaboration to elevate and improve the teaching profession.

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.

Teacher Evaluation for Growth

It was an exciting week for education in Kentucky. We started the week with a presentation to the Interim Joint Committee on Education. The major focus of the presentation was the work of the Teacher Effectiveness Steering Committee.

I asked this group to develop a teacher effectiveness model that would promote teacher growth, increases in student learning and a holistic approach to defining effective teaching. I met with the committee this morning to discuss the implications and challenges to their work thus far.

One document that the committee utilized to frame our discussion this morning was the National Education Association (NEA) position paper on teacher assessment and evaluation. This document provides several excellent points.

* Current systems of assessing, evaluating and supporting teachers too often fail to improve teacher practice and enhance student growth and learning.

* Current policy discourse about teacher evaluation is mired in a rewards-and punishment framework that aims to measure effectiveness of each teacher, categorize and rank teachers, reward those at the top and fire those at the bottom

* The core purpose of teacher assessment and evaluation should be to strengthen the knowledge, skills, dispositions and classroom practices of professional educators.

These guiding principles were very closely aligned with my original charge to the teacher effectiveness steering committee. I asked that group to develop a growth system that would promote the growth of teachers so they could enhance student growth and learning. Bottom line – I asked them to create conditions for a learning system for all (administrators, teachers and students) rather than a teaching system that focused on checklists and little feedback for growth.

The next steps are to recruit 50 of the 174 school districts to pilot the multiple measures that the teacher effectiveness system might include. These measures include such things as observations, self-assessment, professional development/growth plan, student voice, parent voice, peer feedback and, certainly, student growth. The 2011-12 school year 2011-12 will be a pilot year to gain confidence in the content and face validity of the multiple measures. In 2012-13, we will do a statewide pilot/validation of the system and, hopefully, be ready to implement the system in 2013-14.

We hope to include teacher and principal effectiveness as a measure in the state accountability model. At this time, we are not certain if legislation will be required. It has been our hope from the beginning that we would work collaboratively to build a model of teacher effectiveness that all districts, principals and teachers would want to support and implement. Only time will tell if we are successful in this effort.

Effective teachers and leaders are the most important parts of helping all children succeed. Our children’s future is at stake.

Staff Evaluations: Performance and Process

Having been a teacher, principal, superintendent and commissioner, I have experienced the evaluation process at every level. My two key principles for evaluation are that all instruments should be aligned and that all instruments should be growth instruments.

I realize that employment decisions must eventually be made; however, I have always adhered to W. Edwards Deming’s principle that up to 95 percent of an organization’s performance is related to the processes in the organization, and most people want to do a great job. I always push for continuous improvement and growth of individuals while also working to improve processes in the organization.

The alignment principle takes some work. In Kentucky, we have 174 different versions of principal, teacher and superintendent evaluations. As I travel the state, most administrators tell me that we need to address this broken process. We are addressing this through two state committees that I have written about in numerous blogs. The Kentucky Department of Education’s (KDE’s) teacher and principal effectiveness committee work can be found at http://kyprofessionalgrowth.webs.com/.

The superintendent and school board evaluation process is work that properly resides with the Kentucky Association of School Administrators and the Kentucky School Boards Association. To ensure alignment, I hope that these groups will include the following components:

Learning Conditions/Environment – We expect every teacher to create positive conditions for learning in every classroom. We measure that by observation, discipline records, student input, parent input and many other evidences. We also should expect principals, superintendents and school boards to create a positive learning environment in the school or district. One possible measure for learning conditions is the TELL Kentucky survey that we initiated this year. Of course, the evaluation process should include the data from the survey only as a starting place to set priorities for improvement. The actual evaluation should be focused on setting goals and then working to improve processes such as facilities, empowerment, budgeting, resources and more.

Student Learning Results – Most teachers I talk with agree that student learning results are important; however, proficiency on standardized tests is not always the best way to measure teacher impact. A more valid and reliable method is growth. Most teachers agree that evaluations should include student growth from multiple measures (formative and summative). Also, most teachers agree that evaluations should include what teachers do to improve the instructional processes in the classroom, and again, there are multiple evidences of this improvement. Superintendents and principals also should be evaluated on student growth in learning. These evaluations should come from agreed-upon goals and evidences that are directly linked to the district’s strategic plan or school improvement plan.

Finally, as commissioner, I believe my evaluation process is a good model for local superintendents. The Kentucky Board of Education and I agree upon yearly goals that include student learning and improvement of key processes such as communications and support processes (e.g., budgeting, personnel, working conditions). The evaluation process happens mid-year and end-of-year and is done in public.

The ultimate goal that I want to be measured by is the college and career readiness of graduates from Kentucky public schools. The goal is a 50 percent increase in the number of graduates who are college- and career-ready. There are yearly goals that measure the progress and yearly goals for the processes that support the college and career readiness goal.

It is my hope that every board will work with their superintendents to include this key goal in the evaluation process, and then every superintendent will work with their principals to include measures that predict our success toward this goal. Finally, every teacher should know how their work is aligned to this goal of college and career readiness.

Evaluation systems should be driven by the student learning goals and learning conditions at each level. We have a lot of work to do in Kentucky, and I know our boards, superintendents, principals and teachers are all committed to this work that so directly impacts our children’s future.

Early Childhood Benefits/Teacher Evaluations

In these days of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and other services that provide daily, hourly and even minute-by-minute updates, I get lots of information about reports, studies and education events. This week , on my Twitter and Facebook accounts, I highlighted two of the more interesting reports.

* a terrific new report on long-term benefits of early childhood education: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/STAR_slides.pdf
* an interesting report from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which reinforces Kentucky’s caution on using value-added criteria for high-stakes decisions: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/

Readers of these reports may find conflicting information. The early childhood report was mentioned in a New York Times article entitled “The Case for $320,000 Kindergarten Teachers.” The report came from Harvard economist Raj Chetty. Many critics of government spending on early childhood education allege that the early gains for children often wash out over the course of the school years. I really liked a quote attributed to Mr. Chetty – “We don’t really care about test scores. We care about adult outcomes.”

Mr. Chetty and his team reviewed the adult outcomes for students who were part of the Tennessee Star Project from the ‘80s. They found students who were in the most effective kindergarten classrooms were more likely as adults to go to college, less likely to be single parents, more likely to be saving for retirement and more likely to earn more than their peers in the same study who were in less effective classrooms. So, the article and study seem to support the big idea of teacher effectiveness having a major role in student learning and adult outcomes.

In a somewhat conflicting report from the National Center for Education and Evaluation, researchers raised many cautions about using teacher effectiveness data for high-stakes decisions like merit pay and tenure. The report, Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Test Score Gains, highlighted concerns about error rates when using this data. The report states that three years of teacher data that classifies teachers as low performing could be erroneous as much as one out of four times. The report shows that data classifying a teacher as high-performing also could be erroneous as much as one out of four times. With five years of data, the results become a little more stable, and if the data are used mainly for school classification, then the error rates decline. Regardless, this research does raise much concern about the use of one, two or even three years of data to make high-stakes decisions.

So, the question becomes, “how do we resolve the apparent conflict in these two reports with regard to outcomes and the impact of teachers on the learning outcomes?” The answer is in multiple measures. I have been clear with policy makers, superintendents, teachers and other stakeholders. Kentucky will not depend solely on test scores for high-stakes decisions for teachers and principals. Both of these studies point out concerns with just using test scores. In Kentucky, we will continue to work with teachers, principals and other stakeholders to develop evaluation systems that utilize multiple measures of effectiveness.

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/.

Superintendent Evaluations – Transparency vs. Effectiveness

Early in my tenure in Kentucky, I was informed about an Attorney General’s opinion (08 OMD 165) that superintendent evaluations were required to be conducted in public. I asked –“You mean they are required to report the outcome of the evaluation in public?” I was told – “No, the actual evaluation must be conducted in public.”

I can tell you that this was a new one on me. Having been in education for 37 years, I certainly know that evaluations are very important and that privacy and confidentiality are crucial in the process of evaluation. Having served as a superintendent in two districts for more than 12 years, I have spent many mid-year and end-of-year evaluations having excellent discussions with school board members about personnel matters and other components of superintendent evaluation. The key to the evaluation was always a unified summative report that listed the positive elements of the evaluation and the areas for improvement.

While I am very supportive of transparency in conducting the public’s business, I believe that neither a school board nor a superintendent could possibly engage in a full and informative discussion of the components of an evaluation system during an open meeting. The system that I have seen work best includes specific goals and performance targets for the superintendent heavily focused on student learning results, financial management and other key business processes in the school district. Also, each board member provides feedback on key performance expectations to the chair of the board, who then compiles the results for a one-on-one preview with the superintendent.

Then, the board meets with the superintendent in closed session to review the results of the feedback and clarify any questions or concerns. The board prioritizes improvement areas for the superintendent and then both agree on performance targets for the coming year. At the end of the meeting, the board develops a summative statement of the evaluation to include strengths and areas for improvement, along with performance targets for the coming year.

The Kentucky School Boards Association and the Kentucky Association of School Superintendents have excellent models and tools for superintendent evaluation, and Kentucky’s Race to the Top application made a commitment to ensure that all 174 superintendents and school boards would utilize high-quality superintendent and school board evaluations.

While the public certainly has a right to know the results of the superintendent evaluation, the process described above will lead to a richer and more productive evaluation than attempting to conduct the full evaluation in public. Certainly, no one would expect a teacher’s evaluation or a principal’s evaluation to be conducted in public, and I find it very difficult to have a different standard for the superintendent.

The Senate Education Committee took a very important step this week in this matter, and Senate Bill 178, sponsored by Sen. David Givens, gained unanimous and bipartisan support. I hope the full Senate and the House will act to correct this situation prior to the end-of-year evaluations of superintendents.