MEMBERS — We need your help to email your state board of education member BEFORE October 19th. Your support and action is critical to the acceptance of the proposal which will be presented by the Educator Standards Board to the State Board of Education!
On October 19th the following recommended changes to the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System from the Educator Standards Board will be presented to the capacity committee of the State Board of Education. The recommendations call for:
- Cessation of all student growth measure triggered improvement plans indicated within eTPES for category A teachers during the period of Safe Harbor.
- Improvement plans to be required only for summative ratings of ineffective and developing.
- Local Boards may exercise discretion as to when improvement plans are implemented subject to collective bargaining.
Educators across Ohio are being told by their districts “the eTPES system is indicating a required improvement plan based upon value added scores.” Districts have also shared they have no ability to modify the eTPES system to allow for local decision making and/or previously bargained agreements.
The Ohio Department of Education uses the Value Added composite score (comprised of multi-year data) to determine student growth for category A1 and A2 teachers. Thus the composite score contains data from the specifically identified state assessments (PARCC) in HB 64 Safe Harbor Law and administered in the Spring of 2015. Use of the data from the specified assessments to trigger and mandate improvement plans sets up conflict with the law’s prohibition on employment decisions during the Safe Harbor period.
It is important members take action and indicate to their state board of education member who has been elected to represent their community the need to support the recommended changes regarding these improvement plans. The following talking points can be addressed in the member’s own words via email with state board members:
- Research indicates feedback to improve teacher effectiveness and thus student achievement must be accurate. The identified assessments were plagued with unofficial parent OPT-OUTs of their child, technical issues, failure to provide special education students required accommodations, inclement weather, and a host of other issues which occlude the potential accuracy of the data. (Examples of articles regarding the importance of data accuracy are available at ASCD, OSBA, and researchers such as Marzano and Danielson)
- Even the best improvement plans built with the new Professional Development standards which the State Board recently approved, if predicated upon inaccurate data, will not result in the desired outcomes for students.
- A quality plan based upon faulty data degrades the potential and value of “authentic” and meaningful opportunities for both teacher and student growth. Safe Harbor law speaks to this point by prohibiting the use of the assessment data for student promotion, retention, etc.
- The proposal to allow local boards to exercise discretion on the implementation of improvement plans acknowledges and restores the authority of local boards of education while preserving the right to collectively bargain.
Concern has also been expressed regarding the inclusion of “developing” as a summative rating as a trigger for an improvement plan. Previous guidance and policy from the Department of Education has established “developing” to be acceptable especially for newer teachers who may be concurrently working through the resident educator program. The added layer of an improvement plan during the initial years of the resident educator program may be problematic.
Follow the link below and then use the map at the bottom of the page to click upon the biography link so that YOU can contact your state board of education member and support this proposal regarding improvement plans.