Individual evaluations are far more motivating and useful than group evaluations, and the ‘Arizona Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness – 2016-17’ encourages that. Yet, SUSD has backed away from taking advantage of this opportunity. Thus, several questions/requests for information.
Framework for Principal Evaluation Instruments:
Pg. 13., per the State Board
A) LEAs shall ensure that multiple data elements are used to calculate the portion of each principal’s evaluation dedicated to student academic progress.
B) Measures of Academic Progress at the school-level shall account for at least 33% of evaluation outcomes. LEAs may increase the weight of these elements as they deem appropriate; however, the total weight of these data shall not exceed 50% of the total evaluation outcome. Data from state administered assessments shall be included as at least one of the school-level data elements. LEAs may determine which additional school-level data will be used and in what proportions.
C)LEAs shall ensure that the total measure of Academic Progress (classroom-level and/or school-level) includes a calculation of the amount of Academic Growth students experience. The Academic Growth calculation shall comprise at least 20% of the total evaluation outcome. State assessment data including student growth percentiles must be a significant factor in the Academic Growth calculation.
D)LEAs may choose to incorporate other types of system/program-level data into principal evaluations that focus on student academic progress in specific programs, grade-levels, and subject areas. For example, LEAs may determine that their principal evaluations will include Academic Progress data related to third grade reading proficiency rates. If other types of system/program-level data are used the total weight of these data shall account for no more than 17% of evaluation outcomes. Additionally, the sum of these data and school-level data shall not exceed 50% of the total evaluation outcome.
E)The “Leadership” component of the evaluation shall be based upon observation of a principal’s performance. LEAs’ evaluation instruments shall include rubrics for this portion of the evaluation that are aligned to the Professional Administrative Standards approved by the State Board of Education in Board Rule R7-2-603. The “Leadership” component of the evaluation shall account for between 50% and 67% of evaluation outcomes.
My Question: Were SUSD principals evaluated in 2016-17 per B and C above? If not, why not? If they were, how was this accomplished? Will they be evaluated in 2017-18 according to B and C above? If they will be, how will this be accomplished? If not, when will they be so evaluated?
Additional Instructions and Recommendations to LEAs:
pg. 14, per the State Board
A)LEAs shall ensure that multiple measures of student academic progress are used to calculate the portion of each teacher’s evaluation dedicated to student academic progress;
B)LEAs shall include all students for whom valid and reliable data exists;
C)When available, data from statewide assessments shall be used to inform the evaluation process;
D)All assessment data used in educator evaluations shall be aligned with Arizona State Standards;
E)LEAs shall include student achievement data for reading and/or math as appropriate. However, student achievement data should not be strictly limited to these content areas;
F)LEAs are encouraged to use SLOs when statewide assessment data are not available for the individual teacher;
G)Evaluation instruments should integrate student academic progress data with data derived through classroom observations – neither should stand alone;
H)All evaluators should receive professional learning in order to effectively implement their LEA’s teacher evaluation system;
I)LEAs should provide for the development of classroom-level achievement data for teachers in those content areas where these data are limited or do not currently exist so that all teachers use the Group A framework;
All SUSD teachers are now classified as ‘Group B.’ Why were no teachers classified as ‘Group A?’ (See ‘Use of Student Academic Progress Data Decision Tree’)
1)What is SUSD doing to comply with A? When will this be accomplished, by group/classification. (It is assumed that doing so for some teachers is much easier than others.) When will a substantial group of academic teachers be eligible for and classified as ‘Group A?.
2)What is SUSD doing to comply with E? (Specifics – what will be added, when?)
3)What is SUSD doing to comply with G? When will additional groups of teachers become classified as Class A, and what groups? When will such progress data be available for all teachers, and they’re all Class A?
4)What is SUSD doing to comply with I? What will be accomplished, and when implemented?
Finally, per the AEA, Arizona teachers must be observed/evaluated at least two times/year, with at least 60 days between those observations. Roughly what proportion of SUSD teachers were NOT so observed in 2016-17?