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.