Briefing: NYU
Education Policy
Breakfast on
Teacher Quality
Dennis M. Walcott
Chancellor
NYC Department of
Education
November 4, 2011
Overall Goal
Improved
teacher
practice and
school leader
effectiveness
Improved
student
outcomes
College and
career
readiness for
all students
2
New York State Education Law 3012-c requires significant
changes to the current evaluation systems for teachers
and principals
Summary of State Policy on Teacher & Principal Evaluation
• 4-point rating scale (Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, Ineffective)
• Use student growth as a criteria
• Uniform qualitative rating criteria
• Timely and constructive feedback
• Implemented in Transformation/Restart Schools in 2011-2012
• Teacher Evaluation being piloted in 107 schools; School Leader Evaluation being piloted
in 30 schools
3
A priority for New York City is to ensure that all students
graduate high school college and career ready. We can
help to realize this priority by improving student outcomes
and educator practice
2
Boost effectiveness
of all educators
GOAL
1
Retain and leverage
the most effective
educators
3
Improve or counsel out
persistently less
effective educators
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness
(Student Outcomes, Instructional Practice)
4
Why Teacher Evaluation Matters
Emerging research indicates that rigorous teacher evaluations can improve
teacher performance in significant, measurable and enduring ways
> According to a 2011 study of Cincinnati Public Schools’ Teacher Evaluation System
(TES), “high-quality, classroom-observation-based evaluation improves midcareer teacher performance both during the period of evaluation and in
subsequent years,” as measured by increases in student achievement growth in
math. (Taylor and Tyler 2011)
Teachers who are not meeting expectations can improve, but not without
honest feedback
> When teachers get constructive critical feedback and concrete suggestions for
improvement, they can provide better instruction for their students and enjoy more
positive experiences in the workplace. According to a 2011 study of mid-career
educators, the least skilled teachers benefit most from thoughtful evaluations,
and those instructors who make the greatest improvement after evaluations are
least likely to leave the classroom. (Taylor and Tyler 2011)
*Students assigned to a teacher after she participates in TES score about 10 percent of a standard
deviation higher in math than similar students taught by the same teacher prior to TES participation.
5
Why we need a new teacher evaluation system:
School Perspective
Current System Doesn’t Promote
Effectiveness
• Lack of clear expectations for practice
• Evaluation criteria often has no impact
on driving student achievement
• Teachers don’t consistently receive
sufficient or actionable feedback
• No differentiation between teachers –
about 98% of teacher receive
satisfactory evaluations
Survey Responses from NYC Teachers
• Fewer than 40% of teachers who
responded to the survey agreed that
current evaluation ratings are accurate
reflections of teacher effectiveness
• Only 29% felt the current S/U evaluation
system helped teachers to improve their
instructional performance by providing
specific and useful feedback
• More than half of teachers who
responded said they do not get enough
feedback, and nearly three in four
teachers indicated that the feedback
they do get, does not help them improve
• Nearly three quarters of teachers do not
think that the evaluation process helps
poor-performing teachers improve
Source: 2010-2011 Teacher Beginning of Year Survey in 19 Pilot Schools – 42% response rate
6
2011-12 Teacher Evaluation Initiatives
2011-12 Talent Management Pilot
• 107 schools in all 5 boroughs, diverse range of student demographics
• Builds on work of 2010-11 Teacher Effectiveness Pilot (20 schools)
• Goals:
• Build capacity of teachers & leaders to improve student learning, and of networks to
support this work
• Prepare for full-scale rollout of new teacher evaluation system in future years aligned
with 3012-c requirements
• Evaluations are “low-stakes” during pilot year
• We are researching the pilot to improve implementation and to measure outcomes for a
full scale roll-out
Transformation & Restart Schools
• 33 schools required to implement a new model of teacher evaluation and development
aligned with 3012-c as a condition of federal School Improvement Grant funding
• “For-stakes” implementation of new evaluation system
7
The teacher evaluation framework introduced through the pilot will
incorporate multiple measures of teacher effectiveness.
Measures of Teacher Competencies
(60%)
Measures of Student Learning
(40%)
Classroom Observation
School-Defined Option
Local Measures
(50-60%)
(0-10%)
(20%)
• Frequent classroom
observations by school
leaders to assess
teachers’ professional
skills, behavior, and
knowledge aligned with
the modified Danielson
rubric or other networkselected, centrally
approved rubric
• School can determine a
custom measure to
include in the
evaluation framework
• Depending on grade &
subject, teachers will
pilot performance task
assessments,
computer adaptive
assessments, group
measures, or common
assessments
• Examples include:
additional Danielson
competencies; positive
contribution to school
and/or community, and;
student feedback
Student Growth
Measures
(20%)
• For grades 4-8 ELA &
Math, teacher growth
scores on state tests
• For other grades with
a state test, growth
measures / goals
based upon those
assessments
• For other grades, one
of the local measure
options
Note: In collaboration with Talent Coaches, some schools may
decide not to implement measures of student learning in some
grades/ subjects.
Measures used in the pilot will align with the recently adopted
New York State regulations on teacher evaluation
8
School Leader Perspective:
Teacher Effectiveness Pilot Year One*
• 91% of school leaders agreed that implementing the pilot model at their school
enabled their teachers to develop professionally in the areas most needed to
impact student achievement outcomes.
• School leaders’ confidence in their ability to deliver critical feedback based on
rigorous performance standards increased over the course of the pilot.
• Pre-pilot: 35% of school leaders felt confident or very confident
• Post-pilot: 82% of school leaders felt confident or very confident
• 88% of Principals strongly agreed or agreed that their Talent Coach provided
them with the support they needed to do this work well.
• “I am a better supervisor due to this experience.”
• “This was one of the most challenging things I have done in my three years
as a principal. On the positive side, my administrative team can now use a
common lens through which to observe teacher practice and help to move
teacher and student performance.”
*Source: 2010-11 School Leader End of Year Survey; 80% response rate
9
Teacher Perspective:
Teacher Effectiveness Pilot Year One*
• Pilot participation influenced a large majority of pilot teachers to critically
evaluate their own professional practice and seek improvement.
• 77% of pilot teachers agreed that they have already begun thinking about how to
improve their use of assessments for next year as a result of the pilot.
• 72% have already begun thinking about ways to improve their instructional
practice as a result of observations and feedback this year.
• Teachers remain convinced that meaningful evaluations are important.
• Pre-Pilot: 87% of teachers agreed that “All teachers should receive annual
summative evaluation ratings that are clear measures of their performance as
teachers.”
• Post-Pilot: 94% of teachers agreed with the statement.
• Teachers believe that receiving regular feedback on their practice is important.
• Pre-Pilot: 45% indicated they currently received enough feedback on their
practice.
• Post-Pilot: 80% felt that all teachers should receive feedback on their teaching
practice throughout the year
*Source: 2010-11 Teacher End of Year Survey; 329 respondents
10
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
11