The Effective Instruction (EI) Committee met on January 28, 2016 to review the progress of the SGM pilot and discuss the implications of possible regulatory changes related to the December 2015 passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  Questions regarding the following information may be directed to the facilitator of the EI Committee, Dr. Christine Ermold, or any member of the committee.  Principals have been asked to share the following information with their faculty and organize questions at their site into a single document to help direct the flow of communication through the site administrator.

• Background: Pending the outcome of the March 2016 State Board of Education & Early Development meeting, 4 AAC 19.010(k) Purpose and Scope of Evaluations may be repealed.  This would remove the state requirement for all educators to pilot a measure of student learning data as part of the evaluation system. As stated in the 1.25.16 State Board packet Agenda Item 3A memo, “It will be necessary for the State Board of Education & Early Development to determine whether or not to maintain the use of student achievement data as part of the educator evaluation process, as well as to maintain or revise other elements of the evaluation process currently required by regulation.  The department recommends a full discussion of possible regulatory revisions as part of … a future board meeting.”
• Issue: Should the KPBSD continue the pilot of SGM for the 2015-16 school year if the regulatory requirement to do so is repealed?
• Discussion: Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching and her related research is the foundation upon which the KPBSD Effective Instruction System was built.  The consideration of evidence of student learning is woven throughout the Framework, and the basis for the current Student Growth Map (SGM) can be explicitly found in Components 1F: Designing Student Assessments and   3D: Using Assessment in Instruction.  Evidence of a teacher’s impact on student growth and learning is one piece of the broader picture of teacher effectiveness that the KPBSD values.  The KPBSD Board of Education is required to review and approve any changes to the certified employee evaluation system.  The current evaluation system was presented and approved by the Board on 7/6/15.  Additionally:
  • The original regulation required the use of the state’s approved test as one of multiple measures considered in a teacher’s evaluation.  The future of the state’s assessment, the Alaska Measures of Progress (AMP) is uncertain.  It was anticipated that eventually, educators would build one of the two to four SGMs off of AMP data.
  • The current format of SGMs has resulted in additional record keeping that has been beneficial for some teachers, redundant for some teachers, and unsuccessful for some teachers.
  • Conversations around the data presented in the SGM has proven to result in a positive change in practice for many principals and teachers.
  • In circumstances that the SGMs were reported to be too difficult or too cumbersome, it appears likely that educators’ developing skill levels with SGMs, and the challenge of determining what amount of growth is appropriate for various students with various measures were the source of the challenges.
  • Additional information is needed from KPBSD teachers after completing the current pilot to determine how best to proceed with including evidence of student learning in the KPBSD’s E.I. Evaluation System.
• Decision: The E.I. Committee recognizes that KPBSD’s current SGM process has both benefits and drawbacks, and in an effort to continually refine and improve the KPBSD’s E.I. Evaluation System, the SGM pilot will continue this school year regardless of the State Board of Education & Early Development’s decision in March 2016.
  • In an effort to ease the burden of additional meetings and paperwork preparation, and to promote authentic conversations around student data with colleagues, all educators piloting an SGM who are being evaluated on the Standard Evaluation Plan in 15-16 may conduct their mid and end-of-SGM reviews within their collaborative teams.  The completed SGM form does not get submitted to district office; it should be kept onsite by the principal.
  • Only educators piloting an SGM under the Alternate Protocol for Tenured Teachers in 15-16 will continue to review their SGM data with their administrators and submit their final form to district office.
    • Please note that it was the intent of the committee that the reviews of SGM progress should occur during already existing meetings.  Therefore, the reviews with tenured teachers on the Alternate Protocol should occur during regularly occurring calibration meetings or informal observation discussions whenever possible.

• Future Action: The E.I. Committee will meet again this winter to refine the E.I. Survey that is sent to all certified teachers each spring.  Data from the survey will be used along with any regulatory changes and guidance to make changes to the E.I. Evaluation System for the 16-17 school year and beyond.