rampages.us · web viewwhat observable characteristics define quality teaching? how are teachers...

Running head: TEACHER EVALUATION 1

Teacher Evaluation: Laws, Policy, Theory and Research

Stephanie L. Watts

Virginia Commonwealth University

TEACHER EVALUATION 2

Teacher Evaluation

What observable characteristics define quality teaching? How are teachers best able to

improve classroom instruction and ultimately increase student achievement? There is an

abundance of research providing data which distinguish four specific levels of teachers:

exemplary, proficient, developing/needs improvement and unacceptable. From this research,

laws and policies have been enacted in order to provide guidelines for teacher evaluation in the

country, states and localities.

Description of Policy

Leadership is necessary to advance student education in Virginia. Teachers, principals

and superintendents should consistently use the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards

and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers (2012), provided by the Virginia Department of Education.

Evaluations must include student academic progress as a large percentage of final overall

professional rating. Observations and a preponderance of evidence must reveal classroom

instruction in an alignment with the school and state curriculum. Evaluations need also identify

areas of strength as well as areas noted for growth accompanied with recommendations for

appropriate professional development activities which have the greatest possibility of improving

instruction.

The teacher evaluation policy (Appendix A) is regulatory in nature. Regulatory policies

explicitly state rules or laws that are applied to require or prohibit specific behaviors (Fowler

2013). The teacher evaluation policy provides guidelines requiring teachers to be rated using a

standards-based evaluation tool. More recently the policy has expanded to include teacher self-

reflection, peer-observation and student surveys. The preponderance of evidence is required of


teachers in order to fully assess instructional effectiveness therefore providing multiple measures

from which data may be examined.

The Virginia Department of Education adopted the Guidelines for Uniform Performance

Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers in 2012 as a direct result of the passing of House

Bill 2151. Legislation drives the creation of policy.

Legal Issues Relevant to Policy

Policy often begins as special interest groups study theory and research. The focus of

their effort is to achieve more effective and efficient methods while keeping a desired end in

mind. With policy as the beginning, the creation of law becomes the next step on the way to

successful implementation.

Constitutional Law

The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “powers not delegated

to the U. S. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states.”

Historically, educational policy has been delegated to local school districts by the states (Fowler

2013). In 1982, President Ronald Reagan coined a need for “New Federalism”, which granted

the states more power and discretion with federal funding. As local governments continue to face

economic crisis, state governments are now playing a more active role “in spelling out how

districts should educate children and in monitoring their activities” (Fowler 2013, p.70).

The 14th Amendment provides due process rights to the citizens of the United States.

Teacher evaluation must include a process to provide assistance to teachers who receive an

unsatisfactory rating. The evaluator must have received training and use fidelity throughout the

process. Teachers needing to be placed on a performance improvement plan must receive

documented support and if the teacher is recommended for dismissal, a third party should


“ensure that the process was properly followed” (http://feaweb.org/teacher-evaluations-and-due-

process-rights).

Federal Law

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA). Grants were offered and made available to school districts serving low-

income students. President Johnson’s goal was to provide a full educational opportunity to all

children. The intent of the grants was for initiating improvement in the quality of education in

the United States.

In 2002, the ESEA was reauthorized and renamed by President George W. Bush. No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) became law and identified significant achievement gaps among

specific subgroups of students. Again, the goal remained to strengthen the quality of education

provided to all students.

Most recently in 2012, President Barrack Obama offered states relief from the rigorous

requirements of NCLB. Local school divisions would voluntarily submit plans designed to close

the identified achievement gap and improve instruction therefore improving the quality of

education for all students. Through this new flexibility offered to the states, localities must

design a system of evaluation to include peer review, student work or parent and student

feedback.

State Statutory Law

The Code of Virginia, § 22.1-253.13:5, states that evaluations for teachers, principals and

superintendents will be measured using research-based standards, include student academic

progress, result in an overall summative rating, include recurrent observations which provide


evidence of curriculum alignment as well as identify professional strengths and weaknesses.

Recommendations included should be appropriate as to address areas noted as weaknesses.

Board of Education Regulation

In 2011, the State Board of Education approved Guidelines for Uniform Performance

Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. The Department of Education distributed

detailed rules and regulations for local school divisions in assisting with the teacher evaluation

policy and process. The Center for Innovative Technology coordinated the work with the project

committee, consultants, and Department of Education staff.

Through the use of extensive research, teacher performance standards were created.

Examples of the preponderance of evidence were listed within the guidelines as well as an

explanation of how to connect teacher evaluation with student academic progress, as it made up a

significant portion of the evaluation score.

The policy was adopted and guidelines approved. With any new policy, it is simply a

matter of time before someone has a case. There is not an abundance of case law in respect to

teacher evaluation from the state of Virginia to date.

Case Law

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled constitutional rights were being violated as the

State was not providing a quality basic education for all students (Leandro v. State 2002). The

judge’s conclusions were similar to the Presidents’ of the past in their goals for education. Judge

Manning concluded that: (1) every child is entitled to have a competent teacher; (2) every school

must have a competent principal; and, (3) every school district must have the resources necessary

to adequately support these students, teachers and principals.


In a later appeal, Hoke County Board of Education v. North Carolina (2004), Judge

Manning’s ruling was upheld. The judge is now in charge of ensuring that the State implements

strategies to ensure the education system is in compliance with the Constitution.

In Mt. Healthy v. Doyle (1997), the United States Supreme Court put emphasis on teacher

evaluation as it relates to the need to produce documentation to defend personnel decisions by

the school system (Vacca 2003). The teacher evaluation protocol requires administrator’s to

document evidence of standards observed. Directive language may be included within the

comments as teachers are observed over the course of the academic year. In this specific case,

the documentation provided proved that the teacher was not discriminated against based on race,

religion, gender disability or age. The documentation supported the findings of the teacher’s

failure to achieve satisfactory on the job performance-based evaluation.

Theory and Research

Teacher ratings attempt to provide accountability measures as legislators continuously

endeavor to assist in increasing student achievement. Through the teacher evaluation process,

ratings are required for seven standards which include professional knowledge, instructional

planning, instructional delivery, assessment of/for learning, professionalism and student

progress. Extensive research and theories provide evidence which supports defining teacher

quality and providing observation feedback as effective tools in improving instruction and

ultimately increasing student achievement.

Who is qualified to decide what characteristics define quality teaching? Improving

classroom instruction and student achievement suggestions are found in an abundant sea of

research. Studies have been conducted over the course of many years in an attempt to find the

Holy Grail of teaching. Research concludes there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, however


there are identified characteristics and specific strategies that when utilized increase the

favorable outcome of increased student achievement.

Standards-Based Evaluation

Through extensive research, teacher competence and effectiveness have been defined.

Stronge and Tucker (2007) identified specific instructional behaviors from multiple sources of

research which result in higher student learning gains. Researchers agree effective teachers are

essential for student success. Standards for teaching provide guidelines for teachers to follow and

strive to achieve. Table 1 identifies the common dimensions of teacher effectiveness (Stronge

and Tucker 2007). Multiple research bases were utilized to create a comprehensive list of teacher

characteristics that result in increased student achievement.

In research studies beginning in 1997 and continuing through 2007, numerous researchers

have found a direct link between identified teacher behaviors and student learning. These

behaviors now define teacher effectiveness. As teachers incorporate these specific behaviors into

their daily classroom practices, the overall result should be increased student achievement.

Stronge and Tucker (2007) conducted an exploratory study across the four identified domains of

instruction, student assessment, learning environment and personal qualities. They focused

specifically on differentiation/complexity of instruction, questioning and disruptive student

behavior. In an urban school district located in Virginia, data from 85 third grade classrooms

were used for the analyses. The target variables for each teacher were the third grade student

results on the Virginia Standards of Learning assessments (SOL) in English, mathematics, social

studies and science. Each classroom served a self-contained group of students, meaning the

students remained with one teacher for all core subjects. Their findings concluded that specific

identified teacher behaviors result in higher student achievement. A limitation of their study


Table 1

Dimensions of teacher effectiveness.

Instruction

Student assessment

Learning environment

Personal qualities

Focus on instructionExpectations for achievementPlanning for instructionRange of strategiesQuestioningStudent EngagementHomework

Monitor student progressDifferentiation

Classroom managementOrganizationBehavioral expectations

CaringFairness and respectInteractions with studentsEnthusiasm and motivationAttitude toward teachingReflective practice

was noted with the limited sample size used for the analysis.

In 2011, Stronge worked in collaboration with Ward and Grant to again uncover a

connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. The same four dimensions of

teacher effectiveness were revisited and clarified further. The instruction domain focused more

on delivery, differentiation, learning, clarity, complexity and incorporated technology. Student

assessment was defined using understanding and feedback. The dimensions had evolved

somewhat from the previous study. Table 2 displays the comparison of domains from the two

studies conducted on identified teacher effectiveness.


In the second study, two years of student SOL scores in reading and math from 307 fifth

grade classes, serving three school districts representing both urban and rural areas were utilized

Table 2

Comparison of First and Second Study of Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness

First Study: Second Study:

Instruction

Student assessment


Personal qualities

Focus on instructionExpectations for achievementPlanning for instructionRange of strategiesQuestioningStudent EngagementHomework

Monitor student progressDifferentiation

Classroom managementOrganizationBehavioral expectations

CaringFairness and respectInteractions with studentsEnthusiasm and motivationAttitude toward teachingReflective practice

Instructional delivery

Student assessment


Personal qualities

Instructional differentiationInstructional focus on learningInstructional complexityExpectations for student learningUse of technologyQuestioning

Assessment for understandingFeedback

Classroom managementClassroom organizationBehavioral expectations

Caring, positive relationships with studentsFairness and respectEncouragement of responsibilityEnthusiasm


to increase the data sample size. The final database contained data for 379 teachers, which was

over four times greater than the first study covering the identified domains.

The conclusions from this study echoed the 2007 results. Teachers who display the

characteristics associated with the Dimensions of Teacher Effectiveness were able to assist

students in achieving more than 30 percentile points higher in math and reading. Effective

teachers were noted as scoring higher in fairness, respect and in building positive relationships

with their students. They had fewer classroom disruptions as a result of employing effective

classroom management strategies. As with the previous study, again there is a noted limitation

with the sample size. This study included a remarkably increased sample, however in relation to

the potential implications of the study, the size remained to be considered limited.

Standards-based evaluation provides teachers with a list of effective descriptors to

intertwine with their daily classroom strategies. Studies confirm these practices increase teacher

effectiveness and are associated with higher student achievement. Standards provide guidelines

to assist in the retention of quality teachers as well as in setting the bar for those teachers who

may fall short and need assistance for growth.

Teacher Self-Efficacy and Reflective Evaluation

“Understanding the factors contributing to teacher effectiveness” is a research priority

with the potential to “enhance training and professional development of pre-service and

practicing teachers, and improve educational outcomes” (Klassen and Tze 2013, p.60). Teacher

motivation, enthusiasm and commitment are often the unmeasurable factors that directly relate to

teaching effectiveness.

In discussion of self-efficacy as a theory, “beliefs can be developed through training or

professional development settings” (Klassen and Tze 2013, p.73). From the limited research


available, there appears to be a significant relationship between self-efficacy and evaluated

teacher performance. The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation

Criteria for Teachers (2012), provided by the Virginia Department of Education, recommend a

self-reflection component that may be included in the teacher evaluation process. Some school

districts have elected to include this component as a part of the yearly teacher evaluation.

Teachers are critical of their own practices. Through self-reflection, they will be able to

readily identify their own strengths and weaknesses. This component of the teacher evaluation

process will allow teachers to adjust their methods, seek out necessary coursework, expand their

knowledge base and ultimately increase student achievement.

Hattie’s Visible Learning

John Hattie (2011) challenged teachers to know thy impact. Through his twelve years of

research, he concluded teachers must view their role as critical to student achievement. An

accomplished teacher is able to recognize when learning is occurring and when it is not. They

intervene with strategic and meaningful methods that increase student knowledge. The act of

teaching is not found in a prescribed set of techniques, it lies in the teachers’ ability to evaluate

and activate a deeper understanding.

Visible learning acknowledges that there is no recipe for success. It is simply a way of

thinking. Teachers must evaluate the effect they have on student learning. Self-reflection as a

component of the teacher evaluation process then becomes a powerful tool. Teachers reflect on

their own practice and leaders are able to facilitate growth by suggesting effective professional

development for individual teachers on their path to strengthen their own practices.

Theory and research provide a basis on which observable characteristics define effective

teaching. Teachers are best able to improve classroom instruction and ultimately increase student


achievement by staying abreast on current research and relying on feedback from their

supervisors. Supervisors and other school administrators must actively guide teachers on their

journey by working with them to develop their craft. The purpose of teacher evaluation may

serve as a personnel function; however, if school districts seek to remain accredited through

increased student achievement, they must assist teachers in striving to achieve at least proficient

status or excel to the level of exemplary.

In today’s society of increased accountability in regards to student achievement,

measuring teacher quality is an important factor for schools, communities, districts, states and

governments. Everyone has a stake in increased student achievement. Policy developers must

embrace educational research. Knowledge of both research and theory may help guide the

creation of quality policy that initiates data-driven methods leading to intended outcomes.

Interviews

After completing research about teacher evaluation, it seems more important to know the

history of proposed policy. Interviews with both a policy developer and implementer provide the

knowledge of the birth of the policy and how it is reinvented after the initial adoption.

Description of the Procedure

Three interviews were conducted for this paper. The chief patron of Senate Bill 2151

(SB2151) was suggested by a primary team contact and the implementer is personally known by

one doctoral student. The team’s interview with the General Assembly delegate was conducted

via email when multiple attempts to schedule an appointment in person failed. Both the

interview with the General Assembly attorney and the implementer were conducted in person,

lasting eighteen minutes and fifty minutes respectively.

Each interviewee was asked permission to video record the session prior to the scheduled

meeting and he/she was informed that notes would be taken during the interview. Assurance was


provided that no identifiable information or names would be used. Once the audio/video was

transcribed, all data would be destroyed. The interview questions are included in Appendix B.

Profiles of the Interviewees

The following profiles briefly introduce the three interviewees selected for this paper.

Names have been removed to protect confidentiality. Each profile includes the subject and their

connection to teacher evaluation policy.

Policy Developer

Honored to have carried one of the Governor’s education bills, this republican policy

developer currently serves in Virginia’s House of Delegates. The bill he supported proposed

several changes to the processes within the teacher evaluation policy. As a retired high school

special education teacher and coach, he strives to be a leader for education reform, provide

taxpayers with safe schools and push to expand career and technical education training. He

expressed looking forward to the conversations with teachers, administrators, and school boards

regarding the specific improvements included in the new legislation passed.

Policy Drafter

Currently, this gentleman serves as a drafter of policy for the Department of Legislative

Services. In his position as a drafter, he writes or edits bills for members of the General

Assembly. He is trained as an attorney and began his legal career as a new hire for legislative

services. His educational knowledge comes from the time spent working with the elected

officials from 2013 through 2015. He does not have any additional background in education.

This policy drafter’s role with the teacher evaluation policy is in the development of the

writing. He received a script from the patron of the bill which included other stakeholders’

contributions. The drafter’s job is to clarify the language and guidelines for teacher evaluation.


Upon doing so, the bill was presented in both houses of the General Assembly for approval and

signed into law by the governor of Virginia.

Policy Implementer

This implementer currently serves at the division central office level as the Director of

Human Resources (HR) in a small, rural school division. Previously, she worked as an

Assistant Director of Teacher Licensure for the same local school division as well as the Virginia

Department of Education as a licensure specialist. She spearheaded a district-wide steering

committee to facilitate the development of the teacher evaluation manual. The handbook

included policies, guidelines, and forms developed by using the state teacher evaluation manual

as a model. This implementer currently interviews all perspective faculty members, recommends

candidates for employment, and processes all annual teacher evaluation forms.

Data by Question

The ten questions that follow were used in each of the three interviews. The subjects

being recorded for the interview were provided the questions in advance. Data is divided by

question and summarized. It should be noted that each question includes responses that were

applicable from the interviewee. Therefore, each question may not include an answer from all

three subjects.

How did this policy come about?

House Bill 576 was filed in 2012 by Delegate Richard Bell at the request of Governor

McDonnell and then Secretary of Education, Laura Fornash. Sources report the Governor was

motivated to amend the teacher evaluation policy by the Virginia School Board Association in

collaboration with other major education stakeholders.

What is the purpose of the policy?


“The purpose of this was to enact a policy that would put greater emphasis on enhancing

teacher quality in the Commonwealth”. Other sources report this policy as a “much larger effort”

to “streamline the teacher grievance procedure and also update the continuing contract status of

teachers in 2013.” At the school level, this policy translates into more of a data driven evaluation

model. Teacher evaluation, prior to this policy, appeared more subjective. This new process

holds teachers more accountable as they maintain or attempt to improve their instruction as

defined by the standards towards becoming highly qualified.

What is your role with respect to this policy’s development?

The three interviewees represented the chief patron of the legislation in both 2012 and

2013, the educational drafter of the policy and an implementer who works in a local school

division central office. These three perspectives provide insight on policy from the creation

through implementation. Each interviewee views the policy using a unique lens that affects their

role in respect to teacher evaluation process and its purpose.

Who were some other people or other groups interested in this policy?

The Virginia School Board Association was a main player in the development of this

policy. “Governor McDonnell’s policy staff was involved, as was the Secretary of Education.

There were also representatives from the VEA, the Virginia Association of Superintendents, the

Virginia School Boards’ Association and the Virginia Association of Secondary School

Principals.” Teachers, principals and superintendents were included in the discussion process.

With the controversial nature of this topic, the education policy community reached out to a

broad audience as every perspective was considered.

What kinds of things were considered as the policy was developed?


The policy needed to be specific. The “overall summative rating is important so you’re

looking at inputs but also in the end giving the teacher a rating, whether it’s unsatisfactory or

satisfactory.” The current summative ratings are: unsatisfactory, developing/needs improvement,

proficient and exemplary.

What are some strengths of the policy?

“One of the strengths of this legislation is that the final product was developed in

consultation with so many stakeholder groups.” This team approach gathered many perspectives

in creating a language that was drafted in agreement. The policy was carefully thought out and

was reported as supported by the entire education community. The product passed both the

houses of the general assembly and was signed by the governor. The drafter was comforted

knowing that the choice of words in the language of the policy “properly expressed the will of

the general assembly and their representation of the Commonwealth.”

The evaluation policy now has become a tool as it provides more specific feedback to

teachers on areas of strength and areas for improvement. The language included within the

standards, require administrators to provide observed evidence in noting specific instructional

behavior. Teachers are now more aware of how well they are performing and are able to submit

their own evidence through the documentation log. Evaluations of the past were considered

subjective. Teachers performing well got a pat on the back for a job well done without knowing

how to improve their practice. With the new policy in place, there is less guess work on how to

become an exemplary teacher.

How did you get “buy-in” for the policy?

The delegate reported legislators as willing to “negotiate and compromise with the

education community.” With the inclusion of numerous stakeholder groups in seeking out the


perspectives of everyone involved, voices of many were represented in this pivotal piece of

legislature. Including the education community created the necessary buy-in prior to the policy

being presented to the House. Knowing the Governor placed the potential Bill in the hands of a

delegate with an education background, the policy had a greater chance in passing over the final

desk with a signature than those without the Governor’s support.

At the local division level, buy-in may have been more difficult to achieve. Divisions

often choose to present policy in layers, one piece at a time. Teachers are readily able to include

new policy effectively as they take it in steps and receive feedback along the way. With summers

off, teachers learn to build the plane as they fly, so to speak. They hit the ground running in

August with professional development spaced out during the academic year. “During the

implementation process there were people from the committee as well as administrators who

went to the state training.” Often times, teachers achieve buy-in more often from peers than from

administration. State representatives were also enlisted to provide professional development

regarding the new policy.

What did you envision the process would look like for implementing the policy?

“Implementation has already begun.” It looks different from every perspective. The

legislator and drafter have a limited point of view on how implementation would look at the

school/division level. The implementer had no opportunity for forethought in this process. Her

job was to take the division directive and complete the tasks assigned to her while achieving buy-

in.

Is there any language in the policy that is bothersome to you?

The drafter’s greatest concern is the language of the policy. In this unique case, the

stakeholders created the language and the drafter’s job was to clean up the grammar, flow and


logic. “If everyone who is elected is okay with it (language) then that satisfies me.” The most

important stamp of approval on the language becomes the passage in both houses then to be

signed by the Governor. Throughout the legislative process, if the language is questionable in

any policy, the legislators will approach the drafter to question the language. The drafter would

go back to the table and edit the writing to meet the specific requirements requested, an

amendment would then be proposed to address the language and presented to pass and be signed

again into policy. The legislators “remain open to looking at this as implementation continues

and making technical adjustments as need be.”

What is your perception of the success of implementation of this policy?

The legislator believes the policy is successful on appearance. He hopes it will remain in

place and reap “more success for both our educators and our students.” The drafter also perceives

success but in regards to his duties as the policy writer. Until he receives feedback to request a

language change in the policy, he feels the implementation has been successful.

The implementer reports “there is still pushback from teachers because again, they feel

like it’s one more thing they HAVE to do.” “You know I will say from the HR (Human

Resources) perspective, we have been able to use this evaluation system and the process of non-

renewal and dismissal. It has provided good documentation and a format for that, so if you’re

looking at a teacher who we have, you know, either taken off of their continuing cycle and put

back.” The teacher evaluation policy has become a data-driven tool.

How will you know the policy is doing what it is intended to do?

“Ultimately, our goal is to see our students getting the best education possible and to see

Virginia maintain its rankings as one of the top education systems in our nation.” The drafter

reports, if no one is trying to change the policy language, then he assumes all is well and there is


no need to revise. The implementer reports “to measure success of course is our student growth,

moving up, you know, and that data.” She reports using the data from evaluations to develop

needed professional development.

Emerging Themes

As the data was analyzed and summarized by question, evidence suggested that particular

topics recurred among interviews. Themes such as accountability, stakeholders, and

collaboration surfaced.

Legislation, Policy & Language

Throughout the interviews conducted from the legislator, drafter and implementer, an

obvious theme was the topic of the legislation itself. The genesis of the teacher evaluation

process began with legislation. The collaboration of major educational stakeholders and policy

makers created standards in which teachers would be held accountable in regards to student

achievement. The drafter’s job, in this unique case, was to simply clean up the grammar and

syntax. From the House Bill, school divisions created local policy with language tailored

specifically for educators. The language of the legislation and policy are important in how the

teacher evaluation process is perceived. Successful implementation requires teachers to find the

process both valid and valuable.

Stakeholders’ Collaboration

It appears that the Virginia School Board Association was the main player behind this

educational legislation. They were “kind of the architect behind this bigger bill in general but

also about this specific piece about teacher evaluation.” The educational policy community,

through a collective effort, approached the legislative members throughout the life of this bill.

Governor McDonnell along with Secretary of Education, Laura Fornash requested a Delegate to

file this bill in 2012. “The bill passed in the House, but did not pass in the Senate.” “In the


interim between the 2013 and 2013 Legislative session, members of the McDonnell

administration and the Delegate worked with various stakeholder groups to try to work on some

of the concerns that they had with this bill and reach some sort of compromise that alleviate

some of their concerns.” House Bill 2151 was filed in 2013 and passed with support in both

Houses.

Collaboration was key in having the language of the bill amended in order to pass

through and become law. Divisions now had the task of preparing the language of their policies

in gaining teacher buy-in and support. Division carefully considered every word in creating local

policy to translate into valid teacher evaluation on the path towards increasing student

achievement. School district personnel were responsible to “tweak the wording so that it would

suit teachers and education specialists better.” After the policy was given appropriate language, it

was time to launch the process and hold everyone accountable for the new standards associated

with teacher evaluation.

Accountability

“Ultimately, our goal is to see our students getting the best education possible and to see

Virginia maintain its rankings as one of the top education systems in the nation.” In that effort,

the state is charged with recruiting and retaining the best and brightest. By providing standards,

teachers are aware of characteristics that define highly qualified. From those characteristics

listed, teachers are better able to design instruction that is most effective in achieving student

growth.

The teacher evaluation process, as a result of this legislation, has become a data-driven

instrument that has reduced administrator subjectivity. Evidence is provided by both the

administration as well as the teacher. The process itself has become collaborative in nature.


On the flip side, divisions must also have the ability to measure success or lack of

success, and “relieve those teachers who are ineffective.” Teachers now receive an overall

summative rating, by which administrators use in recommending continued employment as well

as dismissal. The summative rating falls into four categories: exemplary, proficient,

developing/needs improvement and unsatisfactory. With 40% of the teacher evaluation tool tied

to student achievement, it is pivotal that teachers create their goals, design quality instruction,

deliver an engaging lesson, assess student learning and by the end of the year, achieve their

initial goal.

The strength of the policy for teachers is found within the components included

throughout the evaluation process. “The job of teaching is very complex, and just an observation

isn’t doing it, it isn’t measuring all those layers. The strength of the policy is that opportunity to

put documents in your documentation log.” This evidence, provided by teachers, becomes the

interactive component within the process to serve as a voice. This is not something done to

teachers; it is a collaboration that results in positive student achievement through teacher growth.

Grievance

The much larger effort of this legislation was to streamline the grievance process for

teachers. There were “changes made to the hearing process” to “allow for an expedited decision

to inform the teacher regarding their employment status.” “Lawmakers and the policy makers

wanted to be clear in the statute that this is a nuanced exercise that evaluating teachers should be

clear and specific and include such things as student academic progress.”

In the past, “the evaluation was too vague, to really give the principal the ability to

document and show that this teacher is struggling.” This new policy provides divisions with


standards and language in which to document through a preponderance of evidence the specific

levels of performance of teachers.

Conclusions

Fowler’s 2013 text, Policy Studies for Educational Leaders, introduces a variety of

perspectives to explain values and ideologies. These topics include both social and economic

principles as well as extremism and liberalism. These viewpoints allow for an understanding of

how policies originate and how they are regarded. Teacher evaluation policy has been briefly

analyzed from the values of efficiency and quality.

Business Conservatism and New Democrats

“Business conservatives believe human beings are motivated almost entirely by self-

interest” (Fowler 2013, p.108). In keeping with their views, teachers then would naturally rise to

the occasion of self-improvement through this specific teacher evaluation process. Leaders from

this conservatism stance push for higher standards and more accountability in schools.

The teacher evaluation policy provides higher standards for teachers to follow on their

path toward self-improvement. Teachers should hold students accountable for their own learning,

as administrators hold teachers accountable for their instruction and resulting student

achievement. Divisions also hold administrators accountable for effective classroom instruction

and the state holds school divisions accountable as measured by SOL testing. Everyone plays a

role in maximizing student achievement which should lead to an improved economy.

Republican Governor Bob McDonnell was probably open to the educational

stakeholders’ idea behind this bill. With the possibility of an improved economy resulting from

higher standards and more accountability, both he and the legislator could agree to carry this bill

as it was alignment with their business conservative beliefs.


On the liberal side of thinking, the New Democrats support national curriculum standards

and assessments. Like business conservatism, their desire is “to improve education in order to

spur the economy” (Fowler 2013, p.111). Unlike the conservatives, the New Democrats display a

“commitment to policies that build a sense of national unity” (Fowler 2013, p.111). Common

Core may be more in line with this party’s views of higher standards.

In the end, the teacher evaluation bill passed in both houses. “There were a number of

changes made to the bill that would help ease the concerns of the education community but still

accomplished the desired result. The result was a compromise bill that gained bipartisan support”

(Personal communication, March 20, 2015). It is clear, higher standards and accountability were

issues that both Republicans and Democrats could agree on as the desired result would improve

the overall economy.

Success of Implementation

Educational leaders are charged with policy implementation and it is hard work. “Today,

especially, with education policy changes emanating from most state legislatures with amazing

speed, school leaders must be prepared to guide districts, schools, and teachers through the often

difficult task of changing to meet new expectations” (Fowler 2013, p.241).

In order for the new policy on teacher evaluation to be highly successful, it must be

initiated by central office administrators who are deeply committed to the process (Fowler 2013).

It is too early to tell if the teacher evaluation policy will be successful, however educational

leaders may take the following steps in ensuring a successful implementation: mobilization,

implementation and institutionalization.

Step 1: Mobilization


According to Fowler (2013), mobilization is the most crucial step in policy

implementation. “Leaders who hope to bring about a lasting change should pay close attention to

policy adoption, planning, and the gathering of resources” (Fowler 2013, p.255). Time should be

well spent in this phase of implementation as leaders learn as much as they can about the policy.

Leaders will also need adequate support from willing stakeholders over the course of the

implementation, from beginning to end.

Planning is essential during this phase. Including representatives from central offices,

principals and teachers, ensures that all voices will be heard with consideration given for each

group. Committee work included “instructional personnel who would be directly affected by this

system” (Personal communication, March 19, 2015). The policy implementer reports spending

time during committee work creating a policy handbook which included the standards and

necessary forms.

Gathering resources includes discussions about money, time, personnel, space and

equipment/materials. The teacher evaluation policy is one in which there are few necessary

expenses. For some divisions, software purchases were made with developed forms that included

the Virginia State Standards. Other divisions chose to create their own forms by borrowing other

divisions’ forms and adapting them to meet their needs. Each resource is crucial to successful

policy implementation.

Step 2: Implementation

Throughout the implementation phase it is important continue to provide resources, in-

service training and continued support from school leaders. After the teacher evaluation policy

was introduced, the state offered training to divisions. Many divisions sent representatives from

the central offices and schools to receive information to assist in understanding the bill


requirements. From that training, divisions created in-services to share the information with

schools and respectively, schools continue to offer training to teachers in seeking full

implementation of this policy.

Divisions have implemented this new policy in layers. The standards were introduced,

smart goals were piloted in some divisions and now divisions are choosing to include other

indicators such as self-evaluation, walk-through observations and student surveys. The

Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers (Virginia

Department of Education 2012) define teacher performance standards, suggest documentation

sources, provide sample forms and explain the connection between teacher performance and

student academic achievement.

From early implementation, teachers have been able to learn each step of the process as it

was introduced. Each division chose to roll out the policy in their own way. One implementer

explained how the layers were presented through on-going, in-service training.

Step 3: Institutionalization

During the late implementation phase, districts begin to recognize that new policies have

become part of the school’s routine. Once the teacher evaluation policy has been repeated,

teachers become comfortable and knowledgeable about division expectations.

“As far again as success, our students learning more because teachers are reflecting,

teachers are setting a smart goal, teachers are looking at their data, teachers are working together

to look at their data. They’re working together to build a smart goal. Are we more successful

because of that portion of the policy? I believe we are” (Personal communication, March 19,

2015).

Suggestions for Evaluating Effectiveness of Policy


Qualitative methodologies hold a high level of credibility (Fowler 2013). They provide a

quick measure that is accompanied with a relatively low cost. The state of Virginia policy

makers appear to believe and have invested in a bill that supports teacher evaluation which is tied

to student achievement. If this policy is effective, then SOL test scores should increase. With

40% of each teacher’s evaluation score being based on student achievement, the SOL numbers

should reflect a significant growth or numerous dismissals of ineffective teachers may be

counted instead. These results may suggest the effectiveness of the teacher evaluation policy.

“Implementing policies is one of school leaders’ most important tasks” (Fowler 2013,

p.255). Educational leaders must take an active role in developing highly qualified teachers that

are able to prepare students who achieve success with the state curriculum. Leaders need to be

familiar with educational policy and stay involved throughout the legislative process. As policy

implementers, educational leaders cannot afford to be policy avoiders. They must be policy

leaders in an age of accountability.


References

Burnett, P. C. & Meacham, D. (2002). Measuring the quality of teaching in elementary

classrooms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2). DOI:

10.1080/13598660220135658

Charles Erskine v. Board of Education, 197 F.Supp.2d 399 (2002).

Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy Studies for Educational Leaders. Pearson (Fourth Ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. Routledge.

New York, NY.

Hazi, H. M. (2014). Legal challenges to teacher evaluation: Pitfalls and possibilities in the states.

The Clearing House, 87, 134-139. DOI: 10. 1080/00098655.2014.891898

Hazi, H. M. & Rucinski, D. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved

student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB.

Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 1-15.

Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C.Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough:

Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational

Researcher, 41(2), 56-64. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12437203

Hoke County Board of Education v. State of North Carolina, 599 S.E2d 365, 382-384 (N.C.,

2004).

Klassen, R. M. & Tze, V. M. (2013). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching

effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12 (2014) 59-76.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001


Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and

student achievement: evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4),

33-53. DOI: 10.1207/s15327930pje7904_3

Morgan, G. B., Hodge, K. J., Trepinski, T. M., & Anderson, L. W. (2014). The stability of

teacher performance and effectiveness: Implications for policies concerning teacher

evaluation. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 22(95).

http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n95.2014

Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1997), aff’d on remand, 670 F.2d 59 (6th Cir. 1981).

Popham, W. J. (2003). Using data to improve student achievement: The seductive allure of data.

Educational Leadership, 60(5), 48-51.

Stronge, J. H. & Tucker, P. D. (1999). The politics of teacher evaluation: A case study of new

system design and implementation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4),

339-359.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J. & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case

analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4) 339-355. DOI: 10.1177/0022487111404241

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D. & Hindman, J. L. (2007). What is the relationship

between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of

Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-008-9053-z

Sullivan, K. A. & Zirkel, P. A. (1998). The law of teacher evaluation: Case law update. Journal

of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 367-380.

Tucker, P.D. & Stronge, J. H. (2005). Linking teacher evaluation and student achievement.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n95.2014


U.S. Constitution. Amend. X.

Vacca, R. S. (2003). Teacher evaluation and the courts. CEPI Education Law Newsletter, Dec: 2-

4.

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Guidelines for uniform performance standards and

evaluation criteria for teachers. Richmond, VA.


Appendix A

Code of Virginia§ 22.1-253.13:5

Standard 5Quality of classroom instruction and educational leadership

B. Consistent with the finding that leadership is essential for the advancement of public education in the Commonwealth, teacher, principal, and superintendent evaluations shall be consistent with the performance standards included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Principals, and Superintendents. Evaluations shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. Teacher evaluations shall include regular observation and evidence that instruction is aligned with the school's curriculum. Evaluations shall include identification of areas of individual strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for appropriate professional activities.


Appendix B

Interview Questions

1. How did this policy come about?2. What is the purpose of the policy?3. What is your role with respect to this policy’s development?4. Who were some other people [their roles, not names] or other groups interested in this

policy?5. What kinds of things were considered as the policy was developed?6. What are some strengths of the policy?7. How did you get “buy-in” for the policy?8. What did you envision the process would look like for implementing the policy?9. Is there any language in the policy that is bothersome to you?10. What is your perception of the success of implementation of this policy?11. How will you know the policy is doing what it is intended to do?12. Do you have anything else you’d like to add that hasn’t been talked about?


Appendix C

Interview Data Analysis

Theme/Topic Interview ContentHistory RB: Sure. So, when I was looking at your questions in preparation for this. I

kind of … I went back and traced kind of … the origin of this code section and the acts of the assembly so most of what you see in this Standard Quality 5 … here in the statute (um)comes actually from a 2005 act of assembly (um) which was carried by a former Senator Russell Potts and Delegate Jim Dillard. (um) And so, that actually pre-dates me …

RB: I didn’t draft that so I can’t talk to the drafting of that part … it’s the bulk of that section which it says consistent with, etcetera etcetera. Teacher, administrator, and superintendent evaluation shall be consistent with … and (um) then in 2013, this is what I did draft as a part of a much bigger bill for (um) Delegate Bell and Senator Norman (um) they added in this important sentence which says “Evaluation shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. (um) That’s sort of the genesis of where this subsection came about legislatively.

DB: I filed HB 576 in the 2012 General Assembly Session at the request of Governor McDonnell and then Secretary of Education Laura Fornash. This bill passed in the House, but did not pass in the Senate. It was continued to the 2013 Session by the Senate Ed and Health committee and no further action was taken on it.

DB: In the interim between the 2012 and 2013 Legislative Sessions, members of the McDonnell administration and I worked with various stakeholder groups to try to work on some of the concerns that they had with this bill and reach some sort of compromise that alleviate some of their concerns.

DB: Following these discussions they were able to draft House Bill 2151, which I filed in the 2013 Session. This bill passed with bipartisan support in both Houses, and went on to be signed by the Governor.

KH: And that’s me … I’m sure you do the same thing Martha. So that’s my background and because of those ten years in the Department of Education. I got a really good feel for the process of how our regulations were developed and why we should follow them. Even though when people (I’m talking divisions) would call and say for instance “What if I don’t do that?” You know for a lot of things there really are no real visible ramifications. No consequences. Other than your state report card or other than anytime someone wants to print up an article that says this division is not following the law. Your name is there. You know things that you don’t want for your


division. So it’s very important (um) for the reputation of your division so following regulations (um) even if there doesn’t seem to be a consequence and even if it doesn’t matter to you, it matters to your division. So regulations to me are not a choice. And so when this new licensure system was developed. I felt that it was our division responsibility to follow those guidelines as strictly as we could (um) because they spent the money and did the research (um) and they felt like this was the best thing for Virginia teachers. Every state has their own policy. Every state has their own evaluation system. But there are common threads in our (um) new teacher evaluation system (TPES) that you will find throughout other states. So that sort of tells you there are some best practices built into that … and whereas there are some things that people do not like about it … There are reasons for it. (um) There are studies done. There were a lot of stakeholders that participated and made these decisions. And (um) I felt that as … um, especially as a small division you know, it’s kind of like you drop a drop of red dye in a cup. It’s very red. You drop a red drop of red dye into a huge division … it sort of … some things seem to wash out a little more but as a small division … I think it helps us to maintain and to stay with all the regulations as strictly as we can.

KH: Really when you think about evaluation…This evaluation system TPES Teacher Performance Evaluation System. It goes further back than you realize because accountability is something that we’ve been working towards for many, many years, and accountability to the extent that it’s recorded, you know not just is what expected is what can be recorded. So if you look at this history, you go back to um, even the SOLs, you know they added that layer of accountability in ou…more…more in legislation you know…You’re starting to get…get that term that emphasis throughout legislation. 99’ you had the um…Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act, um, and that came from the General Assembly. Then Virginia had the stepping up to the plate, Virginia’s commitment to highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

KH: So again, TPES is um, helps to um, define and helps a highly qualified teacher document that they are highly qualified. Um, then we had what was called the Ipower report, first in 2002-2003, and the Ipower is instructional personnel evaluation memo.

KH: And this is a report where the teachers license um, and what were they were teaching is starting to be put together in a federal report and recognized for highly qualified, again being accountable. Then in 2002 we also had um, with SAKS, the sort of emphasis on more data driven process of school improvement. So you know they have that lifecycle, that improvement cycle, so that cycle with that reflection and looking at your data, that’s all part of TPES.


KH: Um, so here we are building up towards TPES. No Child Left Behind was authorized and then we had that goal of a hundred percent highly qualified by 2014 and…excuse me…students passing the state test, but there’s also that highly qualified date in there. Um but so, students have to pass these tests and again that’s also important because that’s gonna tie to a lot of the reporting that we do and much of that data is linked to TPES. Teachers are required by the state to be highly qualified and they’re…they’re…the title list, there you go 2002.

KH: And then 2010, um, was when the first work group was established by DOE to start working on revising the evaluation system within that group of stakeholders were teachers, were principals, were counsellors, were building administrators, were division administrators, um, were…I believe there were school board, um, members in there…but that list is in the original, um…the original guidelines. It tells you exactly…

KH: And then 2010, um, was when the first work group was established by DOE to start working on revising the evaluation system within that group of stakeholders were teachers, were principals, were counsellors, were building administrators, were division administrators, um, were…I believe there were school board, um, members in there…but that list is in the original, um…the original guidelines. It tells you exactly…

KH: the process was as open as it was advertised, and others felt like they did have a voice. So in some respect it depends on who you talk to about that whole process. You know you read the material and it makes sound as if it was very open. There are people that were in that group that said no…They came to us with that and we basically were required to…to say “Oh yeah that’s a great idea!” So you know, that’s tough to know.

KH: 2011, that’s when we’re starting to look at SGP…again that ties to some of the reporting that also ties to our evaluation system…So in 2011 that work group finished their work, and so we had the revised guidelines that were um, approved by the Virginia Board of Education, finally in April 2011, with the understanding that it would become effective July 1, 2012, but divisions could start using it, that 11’ - 12’ school division as opposed to the 12’ - 13. Um, the first successful submission on our master schedule collection was in 2012. Master schedule collection combines teacher records and um, student records, and who’s assigned to teach them and what their growth was, etcetera…It combines all that…

KH: …more accountability…And then in 2012, we actually as a school board approved what we had worked on during the year 2011-2012. I’m a big picture person…


KH: …so I think it’s very important that when you look at a document to understand the history of it, it does help you to understand why some particular part of it is important…you know teachers look at it and go “Gosh, that’s’ just more work for me!”…

KH: …They don’t really understand the big picture of it, and so that has led to some frustration, but that is the history of that. So when was the policy regarding…It was put in place 2012.

Accountability RB: Well, like I said this is a part of a much larger effort. (um) To sort of stream line the teacher grievance procedure and also update the continuing contract status of teachers in 2013 so you know I can’t speak for the general assembly specifically but I would imagine that they were changes to this section on teacher evaluations because when you’re sort of making major changes to a teacher grievance procedure and sort of tweaking how they get continuing contract and a lot of that is based on their evaluations I think you’re going to want …they want it to be really clear in the statute that evaluations include student academic progress. (um) And not just overall student performance. If I could venture a guess I would say that the lawmakers and the policy makers (um) wanted to be clear in the statute that this is a nuanced exercise that evaluating teachers should be something and include such things as student academic progress.

RB: Um …. You know again. I don’t know if I can say specifically what the patron … of this bill considered and discussed with me because of concerns about confidentiality (um) but again … I just think that when you’re talking about (um) teacher evaluation the general assembly just felt that it needed to be a little more specific about what goes into that and also what comes out of it … and you can also see that in the end, they felt that an overall summative rating is important so you’re looking at inputs but also in the end, you know kind of giving the teacher a rating, whether it’s unsatisfactory or satisfactory. I mean you probably know better than I do the different.

RB: Um you know … there often is … the legislative process is quick. I mean we have 45 days in a short session and 60 days in a long session to get on the education side … Now we are looking at upward of a 150 bills. So it’s (um) I mean there is sometimes … things that make it into the code and that I personally wish that they were worded differently but again … if everyone who is elected is okay with it then that satisfies me. And if it is not, they’re going to be knocking down my door saying “Why is this written this way?” or they’re going to be knocking down the legislator’s door and we’re going to change it next year.

RB: Right. Yeah, so I mean the legislative process is … I think that’s the strength of it and why it really works because if something doesn’t really work, someone who it affects is going to notice and we’re going to fix it up


next year.

RB: So, there’s me and one other colleague who do education. (um) We’re organized by subject area and I think that there are about twenty of us total. Just as many if not more subject areas. So people down the hall do agriculture and natural resources, some does finance but, yeah … education, there’s specifically two of us.

RB: No, I (um) I’m trained as a lawyer. (um)We’re all … all of the drafters (aaah) have a legal background. (um) and so … there just so happened to be an opening in the education drafting section when I started here. So I just kind of got thrown in and I’ve been doing it for three years. I feel like I know a ton more about education now than when I started (laughter) When I started I could say … Well, I went to school once …. (laughter)

RB: so this was actually … my first session when I drafted this bill … 2013 … so I’ve been through the 2013, 2014, 2015 sessions.

KH: …and um, again that ties to some of the reporting that also ties to our evaluation system…So in 2011 that work group finished their work, and so we had the revised guidelines that were um, approved by the Virginia Board of Education, finally in April 2011, with the understanding that it would become effective July 1, 2012, but divisions could start using it, that 11’ - 12’ school division as opposed to the 12’ - 13. Um, the first successful submission on our master schedule collection was in 2012. Master schedule collection combines teacher records and um, student records, and who’s assigned to teach them and what their growth was, etcetera…It combines all that…

KH: …more accountability…And then in 2012, we actually as a school board approved what we had worked on during the year 2011-2012. I’m a big picture person…

KH: Um, I think evaluation in any industry is difficult. I think we have some teachers who have never worked in any other job and they think that…again, that something is being done to them

KH: They have no idea that no matter where you are you’re going to be evaluated…Nobody likes it! Nobody likes it anywhere! But it is a part of your job, because no matter who’s giving you the pay check you are accountable. So I think sometimes teachers forget that...um and they start to feel like you know all these things are you know I’ve got something else to do! Well, in every private job you do self-evaluations as part of your um, your evaluation process, and every job you have to sit down with your manager, your boss, and you’re evaluated, you’re reviewed. Um, so it’s not unique to our profession…


KH: …and I think again, sometimes teachers forget that, and they feel like it’s just something else that poor little teachers are being asked to do on their plate.

KH: And it is hard! It’s a very, very hard job. And again, going back to Dr. Strong and why he developed this system, he recognized that teacher’s jobs are complex. So this evaluation system, through are all his research, tried to address as many of those layers as possible to be fair to the teacher. So if a teacher just on a day to day basis you know has something they did really well that day, I think it’s not a big deal to upload to their documentation log, but then they should reflect at some time, what they’ve put in there, what do I really want my administrators to see, not make it a catch all or…

KH: So um…And like I tell teachers when I go talk to them about renewal, you don’t take enough time for yourself, and this is yourself! Because your professional development is not only your responsibility but it’s also a privilege to be able to do that. Um, but it’s something that you have to start because if you’re doing your job better, one person affects this many. You know. You forget how many people what you do on a day to day basis…

KH: …really do affect. So by…by…by saying to yourself all right today is going to be about my report card, my growth, and take that time to reflect on what you’ve included in your documentation log, what you need for your own personal and professional development, taking some time to look for that class, that webinar, that person within your building. Our teachers work together so well to share with each other, um, and to work on this data and plan together, they’re…they get that…Um but they have to remember it’s not just something you’re checking off, they have to realize it’s good, it’s good for them as a teacher, and hope that they will get to the point where they don’t feel like it’s something else they have to do or something somebody’s doing to them, that it’s a process that is going to help them grow, and their growth is not only important to their students but to themselves. So…

Grievance Process

RB: Well, like I said this is a part of a much larger effort. (um) To sort of stream line the teacher grievance procedure and also update the continuing contract status of teachers in 2013 so you know I can’t speak for the general assembly specifically but I would imagine that they were changes to this section on teacher evaluations because when you’re sort of making major changes to a teacher grievance procedure and sort of tweaking how they get continuing contract and a lot of that is based on their evaluations I think you’re going to want …they want it to be really clear in the statute that evaluations include student academic progress. (um) And not just overall student performance. If I could venture a guess I would say that the lawmakers and the policy makers (um) wanted to be clear in the statute that this is a nuanced exercise that evaluating teachers should be something ????


and include such things as student academic progress.

DB: The purpose of this was to enact a policy that would put greater emphasis on enhancing teacher quality in the Commonwealth. This legislation would allow us to recruit and retain the best and brightest, but also gives us a means to relieve those teachers who are ineffective. This bill would require teachers to be evaluated either formally or informally every year, and would include student progress as a component of this evaluation. It also gave the school boards the option of extending the probationary process for a new teacher from three to five years to allow more time to evaluate performance before offering them a continuing contract.

DB: Perhaps even more importantly, it streamlined the grievance process for teachers by making a series of changes to the hearing process. This was particularly important because it would allow for an expedited decision to inform the teacher regarding their employment status.

DB: Our hope was that this legislation would help ensure that Virginia students have access to the best and brightest teachers. The yearly evaluations will give teachers constructive feedback on how they can improve their performance in the classroom, and offer additional support to our many educators who continue to excel. By offering flexibility to the school divisions and allowing for a more thoughtful examination before being awarded a continuing contract, it also would help transition away from the classroom those who may find that their talents are better used in another field. I hope that it is also a step in the right direction for treating and paying educators like the professionals that they are.

Stakeholders School Board AssociationVirginia Education AssociationDepartment of EducationCommittees/TeachersAdministrators

RB: Alright. So (um) Again. Just speaking to that one sentence, (um) because I didn’t draft the rest of the statute like I said that was in 2005, but the 2013 amendments I did draft those. (aah) And you know that we have a … a sort of a duty of confidentiality with … with the members of the general assembly so I can’t go into specifics necessarily… but this drafting process was I would say somewhat unique … (um) it was very stakeholder driven (um) …. I would say that the main player was probably the Virginia School Board Association was kind of the architect behind this bigger bill in general but also about this specific piece about teacher evaluation. And I feel that I am able to say that …. even that much because it in sort of refreshing my


memory to prepare for this, I do recall that the School board association representatives actually held themselves out to be the drafter of this bill. Which is unique because I was actually the drafter but I … it … there was heavy input from the stakeholders, on this one. And so I would say that my role is more of (um) cleaning up grammar, flow, and logic and things like that. (um) And that is not always the case, sometimes when I draft a bill… I will be called upon to … I’d just get … could get a broad topic and you know, the member could ask me, can you just come up with something and I will come up with something and we will go back and forth. But this one was a lot more. Because the topic was so controversial. (um) it was a lot more here’s what we have. please put it in as closely as possible and just kind of clean up. You know … Grammar and syntax

RB: Ok. So in itself. It was written but just addressing (I guess) the nuance of the language and looking at the language and making sure it is clear and specific is what you did. Ok

RB: Yeah I think. (um) you know with this bill and with this specific issue of teachers evaluations. Really I mean anyone you can think of … in the education policy community is interested in that topic so I mean … The VEA, teachers themselves, secondary principals, elementary principals, superintendents. So really, just anyone you can think of. Because I think this issue is an important policy topic.

RB: Yeah, I think. I think absolutely. (um) I mean … Especially in the education realm. We have… I would say … Democracy is pretty healthy in Virginia. I mean (um) we have engaged citizenry.(um) Who will definitely speak up if they have points of view about a controversial topic like this legislation was … and yeah, I think the teachers’ view points and the VEA viewpoint can definitely be seen in how this was eventually drafted and (um) I remember the legislative hearing process was very robust … a lot of debate and I am sure there were a lot of meetings behind closed doors to hash this all out. So I would say that this bill probably … more than most was definitely a collective effort and (um)the legislative members definitely listened to what all sides had to say on this topic

DB: Governor McDonnell’s policy staff was involved, as was the Secretary of Education. There were also representatives from the VEA, the Virginia Association of Superintendents, the Virginia School Boards’ Association, the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals, and the Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals were all heavily involved with the discussion of HB 2151. The legislation was supported by the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Virginia Chamber Partnership.

KH: Okay. Well, you got the big history, but the funny thing was [chuckle]


um because I came from DOE, I often check the DOE websites. It’s…It’s comfortable to me, you know it doesn’t take me a long time to…to find my way through it. So I would um, frequently go in and I just happened um…and I knew superintendent’s memos come out on Friday, so I happened to go in on a Friday, and see this memo about this new evaluation system…and I clipped in and I read it…and you know as a former teacher I thought “How awesome! Finally a way that my evaluation is going to be built more than just on that little simple observation!” and I was excited about it. So at that time I walked down to Sandy Lynch and Mr. Bill Craig, who was here as another assistant superintendent, and I was like “Have you seen this?” and they are like…of course they have…now we haven’t read today’s superintendent’s memo yet.

KH: So I was very excited about it, and so then, maybe about a month or so later um, DOE asked very division to have someone be the point person for that, and because I was so excited about that policy!!

KH: Careful that being excited about something new, ‘coz will get it! So…so I became like the point person in that, and then…[coughs] um, worked with many awesome people in our division such as Martha, um, to spearhead that our committee…because yes you had the DOE template for this, the handbook, the prototype, but you did have some choice in…in the aspects of the evaluation. You had some choice on how you would decide who was going to be in cycles. There were things that we needed our stakeholders to participate in. So I um, we did a survey um, and asked people to read the handbook prototype…Am I going to long?

KH: …the handbook prototype…and then one of the questions was would you like to be on our evaluation committee. So I headed that committee and our work for that year to um, develop our system.

KH: Okay. So you see I bought all of these notebooks…okay this was just…this is just some…

KH: …some of the process of our system, and one of these actually includes our, that’s right here…One of this actually includes that committee information. So…and my roster of who was in that committee, so I was ready for your question…So on our committee, the people that volunteered…and we wanted to make sure we had someone from every school and we wanted to make sure we have what was called education specialist, and that is your licensed instructional personnel who do not have rolls…if you think about it that way. They don’t have a class roll. They don’t give grades. So that would be your librarians and your school counsellors.

KH: In some schools gifted teachers are resource teachers, not actual rolls, so we had those folks in our committee. So I had elementary teachers, middle


school teachers, teachers from our junior high, teachers from our high school. I had special education teachers. I had our fantastic ITRT folks because you cannot develop anything in a division without your instructional technology people.

KH: They…They keep you straight on what’s…what can actually work within the powers of your infrastructure basically. Um, let’s see we also had an administrator and um, because this was the teacher evaluation system we did not want our administrators heavy. So we really only had one building administrator, and that was Martha, and then we had um, one person who was um, at that time director of instructional technology…But the rest of the people on the committee were instructional personnel who would be directly affected by this system.

Collaboration DB: One of the strengths of this legislation is that the final product was developed in consultation with so many stakeholder groups. They were able to bring to the table a unique perspective and helped us make sure that the impact of every detail of this legislation was carefully thought out. By working with them we achieved a result that received the broad support of the entire education community.

KH: I think it’s the strength that you have, that documentation log, um because that documentation log is your chance. It’s your big collaborative piece there to say um, just because you say this, this isn’t all me, this is all these other things that I do, and the teachers should be recognized that…for that. The job of teaching is very complex, and just an observation isn’t doing it, so um isn’t measuring all those layers. So I think the strength of the policy is that you do have that opportunity to um put documents in your…in your documentation log, for your data. So um, that’s one of the big strengths. Um, another strength would be that the evaluation itself…as your administrators get better and better at it, it’s really going to be truer to that teacher. In the past if you were to look at a teacher who was getting ready to put…be put on a performance improvement plan, and a teacher who was supposed to be your exemplary teacher, their evaluations would not look very different, because the language of it…of the previous, the comprehensive evaluation…

KH: …didn’t really create that place or that way to say you are exemplary and it didn’t really…It was just too washed out to really give the principal the ability to document and show that this teacher is struggling. So you get to that cycle of hiring and considering people for the next year, and you don’t really have any documentation that says this teacher is struggling. The evaluation was too vague and too…Would it be subjective or objective you would say it was?

KH: Now, a bad evaluation system is no help to the…to the bad teacher even though it might keep them from losing their job…It does…does them no


favor.

KH: It doesn’t tell them what they need to do to help to grow. So with the way this…You know we’ve got seven standards now, they’re broken down. Um, it does give the principal…Once again, we get better and better at using this system…a way to designate is this person developing, is this just unsatisfactory. It also give that administrator the ability…If this teacher is on a continuing contract, and say they’re Formative A or B, or they’re not going to get that final, that big evaluation with a rating, it gives that administrator the ability to say we’re gonna…we’re gonna move to the summative, and we’re gonna do more observations, and we’re gonna do our rating this year, it’s in the policy. So it gives that principal the ability to say we’re struggling here, I need to…we need to work together more…

KH: …to see where you need to grow and what you need to do to grow, and so that is a strength.

KH: Um, I think evaluation in any industry is difficult. I think we have some teachers who have never worked in any other job and they think that…again, that something is being done to them

KH: They have no idea that no matter where you are you’re going to be evaluated…Nobody likes it! Nobody likes it anywhere! But it is a part of your job, because no matter who’s giving you the pay check you are accountable. So I think sometimes teachers forget that...um and they start to feel like you know all these things are you know I’ve got something else to do! Well, in every private job you do self-evaluations as part of your um, your evaluation process, and every job you have to sit down with your manager, your boss, and you’re evaluated, you’re reviewed. Um, so it’s not unique to our profession…

KH: …and I think again, sometimes teachers forget that, and they feel like it’s just something else that poor little teachers are being asked to do on their plate.

KH: And it is hard! It’s a very, very hard job. And again, going back to Dr. Strong and why he developed this system, he recognized that teacher’s jobs are complex. So this evaluation system, through are all his research, tried to address as many of those layers as possible to be fair to the teacher. So if a teacher just on a day to day basis you know has something they did really well that day, I think it’s not a big deal to upload to their documentation log, but then they should reflect at some time, what they’ve put in there, what do I really want my administrators to see, not make it a catch all or…

KH: So um…And like I tell teachers when I go talk to them about renewal, you don’t take enough time for yourself, and this is yourself! Because your


professional development is not only your responsibility but it’s also a privilege to be able to do that. Um, but it’s something that you have to start because if you’re doing your job better, one person affects this many. You know. You forget how many people what you do on a day to day basis.

KH: …really do affect. So by…by…by saying to yourself all right today is going to be about my report card, my growth, and take that time to reflect on what you’ve included in your documentation log, what you need for your own personal and professional development, taking some time to look for that class, that webinar, that person within your building. Our teachers work together so well to share with each other, um, and to work on this data and plan together, they’re…they get that…Um but they have to remember it’s not just something you’re checking off, they have to realize it’s good, it’s good for them as a teacher, and hope that they will get to the point where they don’t feel like it’s something else they have to do or something somebody’s doing to them, that it’s a process that is going to help them grow, and their growth is not only important to their students but to themselves. So…

KH: …But I have to really say to people if you [bangs hands on desk] take that out then you are not meeting one of the basic philosophies of this system, and that it is a collaborative process. So teachers can complaint night and day, but this evaluation system is supposed to be collaborative. If you take out the role of the teacher using their documentation log, and uploading documents, and making it once in a while, and know you really don’t have to do it, you’re stepping further and further away from it being a collaborative process. Why not just back and do an observation! So that has been frustrating to me that um…that’s the bothersome part to it is that there is the ability to revise but you can revise to the point that it is no longer TPES.

ComponentsKH: I think it’s the strength that you have, that documentation log, um because that documentation log is your chance. It’s your big collaborative piece there to say um, just because you say this, this isn’t all me, this is all these other things that I do, and the teachers should be recognized that…for that. The job of teaching is very complex, and just an observation isn’t doing it, so um isn’t measuring all those layers. So I think the strength of the policy is that you do have that opportunity to um put documents in your…in your documentation log, for your data. So um, that’s one of the big strengths.

KH: Um, another strength would be that the evaluation itself…as your administrators get better and better at it, it’s really going to be truer to that teacher. In the past if you were to look at a teacher who was getting ready to put…be put on a performance improvement plan, and a teacher who was supposed to be your exemplary teacher, their evaluations would not look very different, because the language of it…of the previous, the comprehensive


evaluation…

KH: …didn’t really create that place or that way to say you are exemplary and it didn’t really…It was just too washed out to really give the principal the ability to document and show that this teacher is struggling. So you get to that cycle of hiring and considering people for the next year, and you don’t really have any documentation that says this teacher is struggling. The evaluation was too vague and too…Would it be subjective or objective you would say it was?


Ratings RB: Um ….I mean This … this new language in particular about the evaluations (um)… I don’t actually remember much disagreement about this new sentence in particular about the academic progress and summative rating so I would just say that (um) it made it through … as I said … a really rigorous bedding process legislatively and all sides seemed to be … at least (aaah) somewhat comfortable or amenable to the way that the language came out and that makes me as the drafter satisfied because that’s what’s important .. you know … if the end product passes both houses of the general assembly and the governor signs it then it gives me comfort that it properly expresses the will of the general assembly and their representation of the Commonwealth

KH: as your administrators get better and better at it, it’s really going to be truer to that teacher. In the past if you were to look at a teacher who was getting ready to put…be put on a performance improvement plan, and a teacher who was supposed to be your exemplary teacher, their evaluations would not look very different, because the language of it…of the previous, the comprehensive evaluation…

KH: …didn’t really create that place or that way to say you are exemplary and it didn’t really…It was just too washed out to really give the principal the ability to document and show that this teacher is struggling. So you get to that cycle of hiring and considering people for the next year, and you don’t really have any documentation that says this teacher is struggling. The evaluation


was too vague and too…Would it be subjective or objective you would say it was?


KH: …to see where you need to grow and what you need to do to grow, and so that is a strength.

KH: Well, again, some of these notebooks will have dates on them, um, and those dates represent the days that things were presented to um, in layers to the division.

KH: And one of the things we thought was important um, teachers often feel like central office is doing things to them. You never heard that right?

KH: Yes. So what are they’re doing…They are making…They are all making me do this…

KH: So we thought it would be very important to have someone from the state or somebody from Dr. Strong’s team come…

KH: …and introduce it for us as a state level practice. So, in May of the year before we began the process we actually had um our…someone from Dr. Strong’s team come and do an overview of what the state evaluation system looked like.

KH: So they kind of got a hit with that in May, so gave them all the time to think about it over the summer [chuckles]

KH: Um, and so we hoped from that they would understand that it is a state policy. Um, also the buy in was…again, previous year only first did the survey. We gave people the opportunity to…to read all that, to give us feedback, and to participate on building our handbook and um, tweaking it the way we wanted for our division. Other ways to get buy in is I think we have to continue to get buy in. It’s not a one-time purchase. Um, we do revise it every year, and that revision is based on feedback from administrators and


feedback from teachers. So for example, the documentation log at first we’re kind of like okay let’s see what they’ll do with it, and then they were like how many, how many! So then some of…

KH: …the principals got together, the elementary principals got together and said well, you have to have this many for each item.

KH: Well, then they freaked out and said I can’t have that many! So it was like they asked for it, they got it, they didn’t like it, so we continue…that’s for one item…we continue to work to get buy in, and we’ve continued to grow to show that Formative A and Formative B really is formative as opposed to their summative cycle.

KH: You just reminded me of something I meant to talk about in the…in the implementation was that, during the implementation process there were people from the committee as well as administrators who went to the state training…

KH: …So we were getting buy in then. We were training, but we were also getting buy in, because these people could then go to their peers…

KH: …and say this is what’s going on. And so when Martha said that, that reminded me that Dr. Strong said that in one of those meetings, one of those trainings, that to really know that this works is going to take five years. So it’s like um…It’s almost like you know you think about teachers, you finally get it at year five…

KH: It’s like this too! Um, um, he expects that we’ll really know for sure if this TPES, Teachers Performance Evaluation System, with these smart goals based on student growth is it mattering…

KH: …Is it taking the students to a new level of growth, so…

Negotiation RB: Yeah I think. (um) you know with this bill and with this specific issue of teachers evaluations. Really I mean anyone you can think of … in the education policy community is interested in that topic so I mean … The VEA, teachers themselves, secondary principals, elementary principals, superintendents. So really, just anyone you can think of. Because I think this issue is an important policy topic.

RB: Yeah, I think. I think absolutely. (um) I mean … Especially in the education realm. We have… I would say … Democracy is pretty healthy in Virginia. I mean (um) we have engaged citizenry.(um) Who will definitely speak up if they have points of view about a controversial topic like this legislation was … and yeah, I think the teachers’ view points and the VEA viewpoint can definitely be seen in how this was eventually drafted and (um)


I remember the legislative hearing process was very robust … a lot of debate and I am sure there were a lot of meetings behind closed doors to hash this all out. So I would say that this bill probably … more than most was definitely a collective effort and (um)the legislative members definitely listened to what all sides had to say on this topic

DB: We got “buy-in” by being willing to negotiate and compromise with the education community. We started work on the 2013 legislation immediately after the 2012 Session and this work continued through the 2014 Session. There were a number of changes made to the bill that would help ease the concerns of the education community but still accomplished the desired result. The result was a compromise bill that gained bipartisan support.

State PolicyKH: So we thought it would be very important to have someone from the state or somebody from Dr. Strong’s team come…

KH: …and introduce it for us as a state level practice. So, in May of the year before we began the process we actually had um our…someone from Dr. Strong’s team come and do an overview of what the state evaluation system looked like.

KH: So they kind of got a hit with that in May, so gave them all the time to think about it over the summer [chuckles]

KH: Um, and so we hoped from that they would understand that it is a state policy. Um, also the buy in was…again, previous year only first did the survey. We gave people the opportunity to…to read all that, to give us feedback, and to participate on building our handbook and um, tweaking it the way we wanted for our division. Other ways to get buy in is I think we have to continue to get buy in. It’s not a one-time purchase. Um, we do revise it every year, and that revision is based on feedback from administrators and feedback from teachers. So for example, the documentation log at first we’re kind of like okay let’s see what they’ll do with it, and then they were like how many, how many! So then some of…

KH: …the principals got together, the elementary principals got together and said well, you have to have this many for each item.

KH: Well, then they freaked out and said I can’t have that many! So it was like they asked for it, they got it, they didn’t like it, so we continue…that’s for one item…we continue to work to get buy in, and we’ve continued to grow to show that Formative A and Formative B really is formative as opposed to their summative cycle.


KH: Yes. And you just reminded me of something I meant to talk about in the…in the implementation was that, during the implementation process there were people from the committee as well as administrators who went to the state training…

KH: …So we were getting buy in then. We were training, but we were also getting buy in, because these people could then go to their peers…

KH:…and say this is what’s going on. And so when Martha said that, that reminded me that Dr. Strong said that in one of those meetings, one of those trainings, that to really know that this works is going to take five years. So it’s like um…It’s almost like you know you think about teachers, you finally get it at year five…

Implementation Success/Intent

RB: Right. (um) sorry. I feel like I am being kind of repetitive here. But, again … no one has been … no one has contacted me in the last three years that this section needs to be updated or it’s problematic (um) and maybe it is and I mean … you know the policy pendulum swings back and forth all of the time. And um I’m sure that it will be revisited in the future … in my tenure here …but for now … yeah I think that it’s ok. I haven’t heard otherwise.

RB: Yeah, (aaah) I receive … you know … inquiries from the public all of the time (um)my phone and email is easily accessible on our website. Yeah so I get contacted all of the time with all sorts of different issues. But … Yeah, normally if I ever was going to draft a bill about it that would have to come through the legislators

DB: So far it appears that it is successful. I hope that as the policy continues we will continue to see more success for both our educators and our students.

DB: Not particularly. As the policy has been implemented we have found the need for a few technical adjustments and have gone back to take care of those as need be. Last year Delegate Tom Rust patroned and I chief co-patroned a bill that made a small adjustment to this policy. We remain open to looking at this as implementation continues and making technical adjustments as need be.

DB: Implementation has already begun. Educators hired after its passage or who had not yet received a continuing contract will be hired on a probationary period for 3-5 years before they can be given a continuing contract.

KH: About how it was implemented? I think we implemented it very well as far as how we went through this soft launch, hard launch…


KH: …there is still pushback from teachers because again, they feel like it’s one more thing they HAVE to do! But again, if they’re still feeling that way, they’re still not getting…until they sit in there on their evaluation day, that’s probably the day that when they get it for just a few minutes

KH: Um, so success…The other way to measure success of course is…is our student growth moving up, you know, and that data…like Martha was just saying with three years coming up…

KH: …that’s going to really help us with our data.

KH: And I think um, our recording of data is going to be extremely important. We’re getting ready to move into an online format of this…

KH: …through and we’re going to be able to pull data from that better, and do a lot more alignment. Um, also one of these reports I have right here is the TPEC and…I don’t think there’s anything in here…

KH: …that you can’t see…We had to respond um, to certain questions about our evaluation system…You guys can look at that…

KH: And so we are accountable for this system, and um so…Again, let me make sure I’m answering your question, what is the perception of the success…Um, to the extent of what the state expects, I think we’ve been very successful, to the extent of what administrators need through this, I think we’re still getting there. Um, but I think because there are so many parts of your job, and parts of even instruction that change every year…

KH: …I think there’s always going to be a little rough spot because you get this new sense…where am I going to measure that, you know…

KH: Um, you’re always going to have to…to refer back to it and that…that takes time. So there’s a lot of time in it, um, that is uh…can be frustrating. Um, so, um, as far again as success, our students learning more because teachers are reflecting, teachers are setting a smart goal, teachers are looking at their data, teachers are working together to look at their data. They’re working together to build a smart goal. Are we more successful because of that portion of the policy? I…I believe we are…

KH: So I think that this evaluation system helped us to move into using data better and to understand the importance of data, um so….Are we successful because there are aspects of this system that require data in the implementation of this process?

KH: You know I will say from the HR perspective, we have been able to


use this evaluation system and the process of non-renewal and dismissal. Um, it has provided good documentation and a format for that, so if you’re looking at a teacher who we have you know either taken off of their continuing cycle and put back, kept them out of the manual…

KH: …or has somebody who is probationary, and they just you know…with all their opportunities and layers they still were not able to be successful um…and we are then being accountable to our students...

KH: …then yes it’s been successful. Um, are we using all the data from this evaluation to develop professional development? I think we can still grow with that as well. So it is intended to be a device to help with professional development, and I think that the data is being used more for that right now than the evaluation system…Um, some of the data that I find has helped me um, help the administrators know what they need to do better to make this system work. So in that sense, um, the data that I gather from these evaluations helps me help our…the leaders of our instruction…help the instructors…

KH: Absolutely, because…Guess what? Your evaluation part of their evaluation.

KH: So, it also gives us that documentation then to take that to the administrative level ‘coz they’re accountable for you…

KH: So, that’s been…I think that’s just something that we’re also growing in and learning to do better.

KH: So yeah…So it matters. And when I read all these evaluations, I also keep um, samples of…you know in fact I think I made copies of what were some good…some good comments that were um, shared….Somewhere in all this stuff I’ll try to find it…oh oh, all these goodies here! This was an example of…of just that…strictly that data of what their ratings were. Now, in a formative year, the rating is um…that’s evidence…It’s about the evidence.

KH: …and then there was…there was indicated the process…the progress…you know they were…

KH: That’s…that’s um, actually this key was more for…probably for the summative folks.

KH: …they are making progress, so they are all fine.

KH: …renewing their license. So I mean renewal of contract. I was in a license meeting this morning.


KH: Um, indicate evidence…We say first evidence, um evidence, no evidence.

KH: And then we said…I have to look at it…

KH: Definitely so! So that was just…so this was just again an example I just provided about the…

KH: …the first section of this huge spreadsheet…Well, I have a spreadsheet with this, and then if there was values not recommended over here, um, but then I also um…Here’s an example of um, evaluation comments that were either good or just something that we wanted to go through. So I would actually pull those comments and just kind of look at that and explore that, um, because we do have an administrator um, review in the summer, and kind of retraining ever summer.

KH: This year should be fun because we’re going to be having the new evaluation system. So…this was…remember with the soft launch we did the principal training first.

KH: So the principals were trained, and all those new guidelines.

KH: And when you click on that, it takes you to the page for the teacher evaluation documents. You go to Training, Phase 1, and this a lot of the initial research and the initial prototype.

KH: So there’s…there are some really good articles in here when I went back and looked it up. I read all those…you know some are years ago now, but um these will give you an idea going back to some of your first questions...

Additional Information RB: No I don’t think so. Unless you have any more questions for me or

unless I wasn’t clear enough about anything.

DB: I think we’ve covered it, but please let me know if you have additional questions or if I can be of further assistance to you.


Interview Transcript – 3/19/2015; In person, Martha Powers & Pamela Venable

******************************************************************************

KH: Just to let you know I was a teacher in Henrico County kindergarten for a long time. Then I went to the Department of Education for ten years as a licensure specialist there and then I came here in ’99 and started as an assistant director to work more specifically with licensure and then somehow God thought it would be really funny and made me the director of HR (laughter)

PV: Oh okay. Wow. Awesome.

MP: Why are you saying that they thought it would be really funny to make you the director of HR?

KH: As far as work, OMG because he has a good sense of humor and he knows that I don’t stop until I fall over. I’m like the little kid that runs and runs and runs… and then I fall (Crack)

PV: And it’s like that’s it.

MP: Exactly

KH: And that’s me … I’m sure you do the same thing Martha. So that’s my background and because of those ten years in the DOE I got a really good feel for the process of how our regulations were developed and why we should follow them. Even though when people would call and say for instance “What if I don’t do that?” You know for a lot of things there really are no real visible ramifications. No consequences. Other than your state report card or sometimes somebody wants to print up an article that says this division is not following the law. Your name is there. You know things that you don’t want for your division. So it’s very important for the reputation of your division so following regulations even if there doesn’t seem to be a consequence and even if it doesn’t matter to you, it matters to your division. So regulations to me are not a choice.

Martha: Say regarding teacher evaluation put into place…and I know you’ve got some information on the slideshow…

Karen: Let’s go to that.

Martha: Are you okay with me talking with this cough drop in my mouth?

Speaker 2: Of course I am.

Martha: I just don’t want to cough up.

Speaker 2: You know I taught kindergarten, I’ve heard all sorts of things.

Martha: My nose is leaking.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, so this doesn’t bother me. Um, so if you look, and I have a couple of copies of that particular page…Really when you think about evaluation…This evaluation system


TPES, Teacher Performance Evaluation System. It goes further back than you realize accountability is something that we’ve been working towards for many, many years, and accountability to the extent that it’s recorded, you know not just is what expected is what can be recorded. So if you look at this history, you go back to um, even the SOLs, you know they added that layer of accountability in our……more…more in legislation you know…You’re starting to get…get that term that emphasis through legislation. 99’ you had the um…

Speaker 2: …Education Accountability and Quality Enhancement Act, um, and that came from the General Assembly. Then Virginia had the stepping up to the plate, Virginia’s commitment to highly qualified teacher in every classroom.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: So again, TPES is um, helps to um, define and helps a highly qualified teacher document that they are highly qualified. Um, then we had what was called the Ipower report, first in 2002-2003, and the Ipower is instructional personnel evaluation memo.

And this is a report where the teachers license um, and what were they were teaching is starting to be put together in a federal report and recognized for highly qualified, again being accountable. Then in 2002 we also had um, with SAKS, the sort of emphasis on more data driven process of school improvement. So you know they have that lifecycle, that improvement cycle, so that cycle with that reflection and looking at your data, that’s all part of TPES.

Um, so here we are building up towards TPES. No Child Left Behind was authorized and then we had that goal of a hundred percent highly qualified by 2014 and…excuse me…students passing the state test, but there’s also that highly qualified date in there. Um but so, students have to pass these tests and again that’s also important because that’s gonna tie to a lot of the reporting that we do and much of that data is linked to TPES. Teachers are required by the state to be highly qualified and they’re…they’re…the title list, there you go 2002.

Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: And then 2010, um, was when the first work group was established by DOE to start working on revising the evaluation system within that group of stakeholders where teachers, where principals, where counsellors, where building administrators, where division administrators, um, were…I believe there were school board, um, members in there…but that list is in the original, um…the original guidelines. It tells you exactly…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …who was on that committee.


Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: So…And I will tell you, having spoken with some of them, that some of them did not leave…the process was as open as it was advertised, and others felt like they did have a voice. So in some respect it depends on who you talk to about that whole process. You know you read the material and it makes sound as if it was very open.

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: Um, and, um, some…There are people that were in that group that said no…They came to us with that and we basically were required to…to say “Oh yeah that’s a great idea!” So you know, that’s tough to know.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: Um, 2011, um, that’s when…let’s see…Score students who participated in SOL testing, reading, mathematics, okay…Um, 2011, that’s when we’re starting to look at SGP…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …and um, again that ties to some of the reporting that also ties to our evaluation system…So in 2011 that work group finished their work, and so we had the revised guidelines that were um, approved by the Virginia Board of Education, finally in April 2011, with the understanding that it would become effective July 1, 2012, but divisions could start using it, that 11’ - 12’ school division as opposed to the 12’ - 13. Um, the first successful submission on our master schedule collection was in 2012. Master schedule collection combines teacher records and um, student records, and who’s assigned to teach them and what their growth was, etcetera…It combines all that…

…more accountability…And then in 2012, we actually as a school board approved what we had worked during the year 2011-2012. I’m a big picture person…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …so I think it’s very important that when you look at a document to understand the history of it, it does help you to understand why some particular part of it is important…you know teachers look at it and go “Gosh, that’s’ just more work for me!”…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …They don’t really understand the big picture of it, and so that has led to some frustration, but that is the history of that. So when was the policy regarding…It was put in place 2012.

Martha: Terrific. Here I’m taking the slide, it’s perfect.

Speaker 2: Good.


Martha: Tell us about the purpose of the policy.

Speaker 2: Well, the purpose of the policy is we have to have an evaluation system, because we are accountable, and that again goes back to some of these laws, um…The laws require that we have an evaluation system and that evaluation system includes student growth progress, and it include observations. So this evaluation system had to have those parts in it to meet the law. But you know parts don’t stand alone, so the whole TPES works together to include those two pieces, but then other options. So the purpose of the evaluation process…policy…excuse me…is to take…those laws, and to also allow teachers to be um, more of a collaborative part in their evaluation system. So they know they need to be accountable, they know they need to be highly qualified, they know they need their students to show growth, how are they going to do all that, because our old system was just an observation or two a couple of years…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …a couple of times years…And I don’t know about you, but I as a kindergarten teacher, the day any other adult walked into the classroom, you had you students who naturally for whatever reason craved attention and thought that that would be the best day for them to start making animal noises and yeah…

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: So um, was an observation really ever your very best instruction…Well, I sure would like to see some examples of classroom management…

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: …but was it ever really your best instruction? So this policy has seven standards that allow you to provide your own documentation to support how you are meeting that standard.

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: So if [inaudible 0:08:38] walks in my classroom today, she’s not going to see all those aspects that I’m responsible, that I’m accountable for. But this policy provides the teacher an opportunity…and some don’t like the opportunity…

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: It provides them the opportunity to um, to attach that documentation to say yes I am performing, yes I am growing in this area, yes I am doing what matters to me, to this requirement, this standard.

Martha: Perfect. Tell us about your role with respect to the implementation of all this policy…and kind of got a little history with it…


Speaker 2: Okay. Well, you got the big history, but the funny thing was [chuckle] um because I came from DOE, I often check the DOE websites. It’s…It’s comfortable to me, you know it doesn’t take me a long time to…to find my way through it. So I would um, frequently go in and I just happened um…and I knew superintendent’s memos come out of Friday, so I happened to go in on a Friday, and see this memo about this new evaluation system…and I clipped in and I read it…and you know as a former teacher I thought “How awesome! Finally a way that my evaluation is going to be built more than just on that little simple observation!” and I was excited about it. So at that time I walked down to Sandy Lynch and Mr. Bill Craig, who was here as another assistant superintendent, and I was like “Have you seen this?” and they are like…of course they have…now we have read today’s superintendent’s policy yet.

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: So I was very excited about it, and so then, maybe about a month or so later um, DOE asked very division to have someone be the point person for that, and because I was so excited about that policy!!

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: So be careful! Careful that being excited about something new, ‘coz will get it! So…so I became like the point person in that, and then…[coughs] um, worked with many awesome people in our division such as Martha, um, to spearhead that our committee…because yes you had the DOE template for this, the handbook, the prototype, but you did have some choice in…in the aspects of the evaluation. You had some choice on how you would decide who was going to be in cycles. There were things that we needed our stakeholders to participate in. So I um, we did a survey um, and asked people to read the handbook prototype…Am I going to long?

Martha: No, you’re fine.

Speaker 2: Okay…

Martha: You’re fine.

Speaker 2: …the handbook prototype…and then one of the questions was would you like to be on our evaluation committee. So I headed that committee and our work for that year to um, develop our system.

Martha: Uh-hm. Fantastic. Um, who are some of the other people, um, or other groups involved in the implementation?

Speaker 2: Okay. So you see I borrow all these notebooks…okay this was just…this is just some…

Martha: A woman after my own heart.


Speaker 2: …some of the process of our system, and one of these actually includes our, that’s right here…One of this actually includes that committee information. So…and my roster of who was in that committee, so I was ready for your question…So on our committee, the people that volunteered…and we wanted to make sure we had someone from every school and we wanted to make sure we have what was called education specialist, and that is your licensed instructional personnel who do not have roles…if you think about it that way. They don’t have a class role. They don’t give grades. So that would be your librarians and your school counsellors.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: In some schools gifted teachers are resource teachers, not actual roles, so we had those folks in our committee. So I had elementary teachers, middle school teachers, teachers from our junior high, teachers from our high school. I had special education teachers. I had our fantastic ITRT folks because you cannot develop anything in a division without your instructional technology people.

Martha: So true.

Speaker 2: They…They keep you straight on what’s…what can actually work within the powers of your infrastructure basically. Um, let’s see we also had administrator and um, because this was the teacher evaluation system we did not want our administrators heavy. So we really only had one building administrator, and that was Martha, and then we had um, one person who was um, at that time director of instructional technology…But the rest of the people on the committee were instructional personnel who would be directly affected by this system.

Martha: Fantastic. What kinds of things were considered as the policy was, um, implemented?

Speaker 2: Every word in the handbook…We broke down the committee into um, we had English…W had some great English teachers on our committee, who were also published writers.

Martha: Awesome.

Speaker 2: So they helped us review it word by word, and we used that, the handbook um, pretty…pretty closely, but we did um, tweak the wording that um…so that it would suit our teachers and education specialists better. So we had writers [coughs] and we wanted to consider the language of the um, the evaluation system…We also had people who were pretty good at creating forms, so we had people that worked on our committee that looked at all the forms and they are many, many, many…because what is it like um…the manual is 100 and some pages and 80 some of it…

Because it wasn’t only a form for a teacher…Teachers have eight…excuse me…seven standards, but educational specialists standards are a little bit different…


Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …because again, they don’t have student roles, so you can’t say student assessment

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …You have to say program assessment.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: So we chose within this committee to then also have educational specialists committee who reviewed the forms specifically for educational specialists. So we had sub-committees that worked um, down to the…the letter and word as well as teacher committees. So we had the forms committee, that educational specialist committee, and then the…the actual body of the language of the evaluation system. Um, so we looked at those forms, um, the observation forms, and I also gathered information from across region one, because this was a state wide process. So um, many of the other divisions shared forms that they were working through. There had been a pilot program of a division that was already in this system, the year prior, so I have a lot of contacts within those divisions, and they shared some of their forms that they had developed to work though that pilot and they were also getting…more help from Dr. Strong, who was um, you know this is really his…a whole lot of his philosophy and his…his research that he has done across the…actually the world, um…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: So they were getting additional help through their grant because they were in that…that pilot program. So they shared their forms with us as well. So we reviewed forms from other division. We reviewed the state forms, and that…that was really important. What’s going to work within or division, and what’s going to work for our technology, ‘coz this is all paper. So we had to throughout the…that first year actually, we got into some other things to help with um, more um, online um format…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …so that principals could walk in. So there were some folks that were pretty savvy with technology, so we made sure that our forms would work both paper and online…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …So we had to develop multiple formats of forms and…there are…clubs your ITRTs…

Martha: Definitely!

Speaker 2: Yayy for them! So they were extremely helpful in making that happen. Um what other things that we consider in the policy…Well, we had done that survey so we got some


feedback, and originally the state was going to give you a choice on the percentage of SGP…so how much of that if you had a SGP, a Student Growth Progress score…if you had that, um, what was…percentage of standard seven was that going to be? So originally you kinda had this choice, but then as we were developing, the law always passes it, if real, not really, its’ gonna be 40 percent.

Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Um, so we did look at those things that initially were intended to be choices, um, but I believe actually our committee felt pretty good about the way it was broken down.

Martha: And they were gonna go 40 percent anyway.

Speaker 2: Yeah…because…the other piece of that was…well, right now we’re not pushing, but it is not going to go to that…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: So we figured you know what if we’re going to jump in here…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …we might as well jump in all the way.

Martha: So you went all the way.

Speaker 2: Yes, we did.

Martha: At least it went all the way.

Speaker 2: What else was considered was how we were going to do that, and so when you see this, our PowerPoint, we called it a soft launch, and then a hard launch,

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …and then the landing. So the soft launch was all these things that we did to develop it…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …and then how we presented it um, and then actually doing it…

Martha: Doing it.

Speaker 2: …was the hard launch, and then the landing was how the administrators dealt with it all throughout their day. So um, I don’t know if…is you watched this PowerPoint, we can also get all the clips. Um Meredith Roe um, attended and developed this with me, and um, Mr. Sols or one of the elementary principals also.


Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …So when we presented it, it was district level, um, how …and then Meredith as an educational specialist um, and curriculum specialist helped with sort of that layer…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …And then we had the principal share how to actually work within the school…But we also had to consider the cycle and how we were going to put people on cycles, so we all even voted on using a…that that would be done randomly, not assigned by how many years you’ve been teaching or any of that. Um, we used a random generator…

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …for each staff, who were continuing contract. So if you’re continuing contract you have a separate cycle…

Martha: Cycle versus a probationary teacher…

Speaker 2: Yes, correct.

Martha: …that kind of a thing…and that was going to be my follow up question. It’s like okay I know that in the system that I’m in, um, the continuing contract teachers have a different cycle versus probationary…

Speaker 2: Correct.

Martha: …teachers in reference to license or in um, in experience.

Speaker 2: Okay, you did it by that.

Martha: Um…

Speaker 2: We just totally did it randomly.

Martha: Um, and I think the consideration was to be based on experience and then they transitioned it. It looks like decisions were made anyway…so it’s a different cycle for continuing contract versus um, probationary teachers, and so they are two different things now and this…like you said not based on experience but a cycle of…

Speaker 2: It’s really about how administrators can get all of this done.

Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: You know as far as…as that cycle piece being different um, because principals have always been responsible for their staff, so…

Martha: Right.


Speaker 2: …So that…I’m not saying that it’s about how they can get it done, because yeah…it is what they do…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …that they’re responsible for instruction in their school, but it’s how we’re going to track that…

Martha: Yes.

Speaker 2: …as much as anything. So um, we had…We also decided on the language of what we were going to call those cycles, and so our committee decided that Formative A, Formative B, and then your last year was your um… Oh my gosh that is summative year… thank you…

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: So your summative year, so formative to summative.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: So we decided on that language within our committee. So there were little nit-picky things really…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …that we had to decide, um, and then there were big things um, that we had to decide. So it was a…it was a great year of collaboration for a policy that was about collaboration.

Martha: Awesome. Thank you. What are some of the strengths do you think…

Speaker 2: Well, the strengths that I think are strengths that maybe the teachers don’t.

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: I think it’s the strength that you have, that documentation log, um because that documentation log is your chance. It’s your big collaborative piece there to say um, just because you say this, this isn’t all me, this is all these other things that I do, and the teachers should be recognized that…for that. The job of teaching is very complex, and just an observation isn’t doing it, so um isn’t measuring all those layers. So I think the strength of the policy is that you do have that opportunity to um put documents in your…in your documentation log, for your data. So um, that’s one of the big strengths.

Um, another strength would be that the evaluation itself…as your administrators get better and better at it, it’s really going to be truer to that teacher. In the past if you were to look at a teacher who was getting ready to put…be put on a performance improvement plan, and a teacher who was supposed to be your exemplary teacher,


their evaluations would not look very different, because the language of it…of the previous, the comprehensive evaluation…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …didn’t really create that place or that way to say you are exemplary and it didn’t really…It was just too washed out to really give the principal the ability to document and show that this teacher is struggling. So you get to that cycle of hiring and considering people for the next year, and you don’t really have any documentation that says this teacher is struggling. The evaluation was too vague and too…Would it be subjective or objective you would say it was?

Martha: Subjective.

Speaker 2: Too subjective yeah…It didn’t…It didn’t help anybody really

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: Now, a bad evaluation system is no help to the…to the bad teacher even though it might keep them from losing their job…

Martha: [coughs] job right…

Speaker 2: …It does…does them no favour.

Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: It doesn’t tell them what they need to do to help to grow. So with the way this…You know we’ve got seven standards now, they’re broken down. Um, it does give the principal…Once again, we get better and better at using this system…a way to designate is this person developing, is this just unsatisfactory. It also give that administrator the ability…If this teacher is on a continuing contract, and say they’re Formative A or B, or they’re not going to get that file, that big evaluation with a rating, it gives that administrator the ability to say we’re gonna…we’re gonna move to the summative, and we’re gonna do more observations, and we’re gonna do our rating this year, it’s in the policy. So it gives that principal the ability to say we’re struggling here, I need to…we need to work together more…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …to see where you need to grow and what you need to do to grow, and so that is a strength.

Pamela: Definitely. How do you get…How do you buy your notebooks…[laughter]

Speaker 2: Well, again, some of these notebooks will have dates on them, um, and those dates represent the days that things were presented to um, in layers to the division.


Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: And one of the things we thought was important um, teachers often feel like central office isn’t doing things to them. You never heard that right?

Martha: I’ve never heard that before. [laughter]

Pamela: Doing things to us…

Speaker 2: Yes. So what are they’re doing…They are making…They are all making me do this…

Martha: Yes.

Speaker 2: So we thought it would be very important to have someone from the state or somebody from Dr. Strong’s team come…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …and introduce it for us as a state level practice. So, in May of the year before we began the process we actually had um our…someone from Dr. Strong’s team come and do an overview of what the state evaluation system looked like.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: So they kind of got a hint with that in May, so gave them all the time to think about it over the summer [chuckles]

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: Um, and so we hoped from that they would understand that it is a state policy. Um, also the buy in was…again, previous year only first did the survey. We gave people the opportunity to…to read all that, to give us feedback, and to participate on building our handbook and um, tweaking it the way we wanted for our division. Other ways to get buy in is I think we have to continue to get buy in. It’s not a one-time purchase. Um, we do revise it every year, and that revision is based on feedback from administrators and feedback from teachers. So for example, the documentation log at first we’re kind of like okay let’s see what they’ll do with it, and then they were like how many, how many! So then some of…the principles got together, the elementary principals got together and said well, you have to have this many for each item.

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: Well, then they freaked out and said I can’t have that many! So it was like they asked for it, they got it, they didn’t like it, so we continue…that’s’ for one item…we continue to work to get buy in, and we’ve continued to grow to show that Formative A and Formative B really is formative as opposed to their summative cycle.


Martha: Do you think it is…This is a follow up question that’s not in there anywhere…

Speaker 2: Sure.

Martha: …Do you think it’s important for them to go through the whole three year cycle…

Speaker 2: Yes.

Martha: …to get it…

Speaker 2: I think so.

Martha: …to really truly understand that Formative A and B…

Speaker 2: Yes.

Martha: …You’re not getting an official rating. I mean you’re still being evaluated but it builds towards that third year.

Speaker 2: Yes. And you just reminded me of something I meant to talk about in the…in the implementation was that, during the implementation process there were people from the committee as well as administrators who went to the state training…

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …So we were getting buy in then. We were training, but we were also getting buy-in, because these people could then go to their peers…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …and say this is what’s going on. And so when Martha said that, that reminded me that Dr. Strong said that in one of those meetings, one of those trainings, that to really know that this works is going to take five years. So it’s like um…It’s almost like you know you think about teachers, you finally get it at year five…

Pamela: [laughter]

Martha: Yeah, right.

Speaker 2: It’s like this too! Um, um, he expects that we’ll really know for sure if this TPES, Teachers Performance Evaluation System, with these smart goals based on student growth is it mattering…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …Is it taking the students to a new level of growth, so…


Martha: Um, if you’re comfortable I think um, we’ve kind of covered a little bit with eight about the process so…

Speaker 2: Sure.

Martha: …what would it look like to implement…we could go straight to the ninth one then…

Speaker 2: Okay…

Martha: …if you’re okay…Um, what about the language in the policy, is there anything that’s bothersome to you, because I know our division of course revises annually…but is there anything in the policy itself that…

Speaker 2: Well…

Martha: …bugs you.

Speaker 2: Um, occasionally, um, there are people [laughing] because they keep wanting to change it…

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …That has been a problem…There’s one thing to revise, but I have to really…And I’m going to use the word fight…um I don’t mean that…

Martha: Literally…

Speaker 2: …it doesn’t get dirty…

Martha: [laughter]

Speaker 2: …But I have to really say to people if you [bangs hands on desk] take that out then you are not meeting one of the basic philosophies of this system, and that it is a collaborative process. So teachers can complaint night and day, but this evaluation system is supposed to be collaborative. If you take out the role of the teacher using their documentation log, and uploading documents, and making it once in a while, and know you really don’t have to do it, you’re stepping further and further away from it being a collaborative process. Why not just back and do an observation! So that has been frustrating to me that um…that’s the bothersome part to it is that there is the ability to revise but you can revise to the point that it is no longer TPES.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: Other things that are bothersome…Um, well what was bothersome we’ve gotten better, and that was some of the language in the original evaluation form such as the interim form…evident, not evident…We found that that language we thought that would make sense, but we would get comments that were very negative, but the principal would


check evident. So it’s like they saw to them, they saw some growth there, or they saw some examples, yet there was something that was still powerfully negative…Um, again that’s…that’s very confusing to a teacher…”Am I getting it, am I not!”…

Martha: I’m not getting it…

Speaker 2: …Um, and then I have to report this in TPEC, which is another example of the document I brought to…I have to report the ratings…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …division wise, not named by name but division wise…and you know I would get to the form, and I actually read every single evaluation in the division, um, and then tracked the data. So I would get…Well, I’m confused whether this person is or isn’t…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …evaluating this requirement. So we actually tweaked that language a little bit um, the next year, and we’ll continue to tweak it until what the principal is saying and what they’re marketing are the same.

Martha: So it should match. It shouldn’t be a “these are the comments” or “these are the…this is what is stated…and then there’s a maybe…It’s not a…It’s not a yes or a no, a maybe could be either...”

Speaker 2: Correct. Correct.

Martha: …or kind of thing.

Speaker 2: Right.

Martha: So it creates like…

Speaker 2: It is nice and warm and fuzzy ‘cause its interim and you’re not really being raided, but they…

Martha: Is it constructive…

Speaker 2: Correct. And they are going to get to that summative level. And have you really addressed that enough to say when they get that summative rating, you know for them not to go “Well, you never told me that!”

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: Um, so we are working to…to make that clearer um…So again, they get to summative is not a surprise um, because collaborative, and it’s about growth, and it also helps us to


determine what our professional development should be. So that would be probably my answer to that.

Martha: Perfect. Um, tell us about your perception of the success about how the policy has been implemented.

Speaker 2: About how it was implemented? I think we implemented it very well as far as how we went through this soft launch, hard launch…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …um, how it is going as a division…there is still…there is still pushback from teachers because again, they feel like it’s one more thing they HAVE to do! But again, if they’re still feeling that way, they’re still not getting…until they sit in there on their evaluation day, that’s probably the day that when they get it for just a few minutes [chuckles]…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …that that mattered.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: Um, so success…The other way to measure success of course is…is our student growth moving up, you know, and that data…like Martha was just saying with three years coming up…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …that’s going to really help us with our data.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: And I think um, our recording of data is going to be extremely important. We’re getting ready to move into an online format of this…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …through…and we’re going to be able to pull data from that better, and do a lot more alignment. Um, also one of these reports I have right here is the TPEC and…I don’t think there’s anything in here…that you can’t see…We had to respond um, to certain questions about our evaluation system…You guys can take that…

Martha: Thank you.

Speaker 2: And so we are accountable for this system, and um so…Again, let me make sure I’m answering your question, what is the perception of the success…Um, to the extent of what the state expects, I think we’ve been very successful, to the extent of what


administrators need through this, I think we’re still getting there. Um, but I think because there are so many parts of your job, and parts of even instruction that change every year…

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …I think there’s always going to be a little rough spot because you get this new sense…where am I going to measure that, you know…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: Um, you’re always going to have to…to refer back to it and that…that takes time. So there’s a lot of time in it, um, that is uh…can be frustrating. Um, so, um, as far again as success, our students learning more because teachers are reflecting, teachers are setting a smart goal, teachers are looking at their data, teachers are working together to look at their data. They’re working together to build a smart goal. Are we more successful because of that portion of the policy? I…I believe we are…

Pamela: Uh-hm.

Martha: Right.

Pamela: I would agree.

Speaker 2: So I think that this evaluation system helped us to move into using data better and to understand the importance of data, um so….Are we successful because there are aspects of this system that require data in the implementation of this process? Yes. And that kind of goes to number 11…How do you know policies doing.. You know I will say from the HR perspective, we have been able to use this evaluation system and the process of non renewal and dismissal. Um, it has provided good documentation and a format for that, so if you’re looking at a teacher who we have you know either taken off of their continuing cycle and put back, kept them out of the manual…or has somebody who is probationary, and they just you know…with all their opportunities and layers they still were not able to be successful um…and we are then being accountable to our students...

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …then yes it’s been successful. Um, are we using all the data from this evaluation to develop professional development? I think we can still grow with that as well. So it is intended to be a device to help with professional development, and I think that the data is being used more for that right now than the evaluation system…Um, some of the data that I find has helped me um, help the administrators know what they need to do better to make this system work. So in that sense, um, the data that I gather from these evaluations helps me help our…the leaders of our instruction…help the instructors…


Martha: Okay. I’m a classroom teacher, so we say you collect the data and you share it with the administrators, that’s in terms of um, this is what I’m finding according to, um, let’s say um, SOL information or testing information or…

Speaker 2: I’m looking strictly at the evaluation of the…

Martha: Yeah, teacher evaluation to say okay look at it in the…that’s a part of what I’m thinking about, but okay, so you’re looking at an evaluation let’s say Formative A, that was completed by an administrator, and they noted these things okay…So you would say to that administrator okay I’m seeing or hearing this, this and this with reference to this particular teacher, what have you done…

Speaker 2: Absolutely.

Martha: …to assist that teacher what have…what kind of feedback give you given that teacher to say um, this is what you need to work on and this is what you did well…

Speaker 2: Absolutely.

Martha: …kind of the thing…and what are you seeing as result of that, in my understanding.

Speaker 2: Absolutely, because…Guess what? Your evaluation part of their evaluation.

Martha: Right, okay.

Speaker 2: [laughter]

Martha: Yes, okay.

Speaker 2: So, it also gives us that documentation then to take that to the administrative level ‘coz they’re accountable for you…

Martha: Yes.

Speaker 2: …and the students.

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: So, that’s been…I think that’s just something that we’re also growing in and learning to do better.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: So yeah…So it matters. And when I read all these evaluations, I also keep um, samples of…you know in fact I think I made copies of what were some good…some good comments that were um, shared….Somewhere in all this stuff I’ll try to find it…oh, oh, all these goodies here! This was an example of…of just that…strictly that data of what their


ratings were. Now, in a formative year, the rating is um…that’s evidence…It’s about the evidence.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: So…that’s’ how you would see that there.

Martha: All right so…

Speaker 2: So recommended…they’re recommended here…

Martha: Here okay.

Speaker 2: …and then there was…there was indicated the process…the progress…you know they were…

Martha: So your…your P is proficient. So if I have an IPS let’s say for example…

Speaker 2: That’s…that’s um, actually this key was more for…probably for the summative folks.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: But, um, they are…they are making progress, so they are all fine.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: …you know and they are recommended for…for, um, renewal…

Martha: They know it…that’s the…okay, right.

Speaker 2: …renewing their license. So I mean [crosstalk]

Martha: Right, got you.

Speaker 2: Um, indicate evidence…We say first evidence, um evidence, no evidence.

Martha: Evidence, no evidence.

Speaker 2: And then we said…I have to look at it…

Pamela: I would have to look at it again too..

Speaker 2: So again, all this later…

Martha: Yeah.

Speaker 2: Definitely so! So that was just…so this was just again an example I just provided about the…

Martha: Right.


Speaker 2: …the first section of this huge spreadsheet…Well, I have a spreadsheet with this, and then if there was values not recommended over here, um, but then I also um…Here’s an example of um, evaluation comments that were either good or just something that we wanted to go through. So I would actually pull those comments and just kind of look at that and explore that, um, because we do have an administrator um, review in the summer, and kind of retraining ever summer.

Martha: Okay.

Speaker 2: This year should be fun because we’re going to be having the new evaluation system. So…this was…remember, with the soft launch we did the principal training first.

Pamela: Uh-hm, yeah.

Speaker 2: So the principals were trained, and all those new guidelines.

Martha: The best time is to go to the last follow up question, do you have anything else that would be beneficial do you think for us to know…

Speaker 2: Yes.

Martha: …that we didn’t ask.

Pamela: Well, anything else to…

Speaker 2: This…I copied this page from DOE site because there are some…some good abstract and research articles that are on this topic, so from initial get go…

Martha: Awesome…

Speaker 2: …so when you got to…all right, so you go to DOE and then…

Pamela: [sneezes] Excuse me ladies.

Martha: There was go…

Speaker 2: You got to DOE, and then you go to license…and wherever on the license, your page, there is a choice for performance and evaluation.

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: And when you click on that, it takes you to the page for the teacher evaluation documents. You go to Training, Phase 1, and this a lot of the initial research and the initial prototype.

Martha: Okay.


Speaker 2: So there’s…there are some really good articles in here when I went back and looked it up. I read all those…you know some are years ago now, but um these will give you an idea going back to some of your first questions...

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: …how does that develop that to stay will give you some good background. So definitely you guys…

Martha: Awesome.

Speaker 2: …I’ll just – Oh, sorry.

Pamela: [laughing]

Martha: And um, let’s see…All right so do you have anything else you want to add to what’s been talked about.

Speaker 2: Um, I think evaluation in any industry is difficult. I think we have some teachers who have never worked in any other job and they think that…again, that something is being done to them

Martha: Uh-hm.

Speaker 2: They have no idea that no matter where you are you’re going to be evaluated…Nobody likes it! Nobody likes it anywhere! But it is a part of your job, because no matter who’s giving you the paycheck you are accountable. So I think sometimes teachers forget that...um and they start to feel like you know all these things are you know I’ve got something else to do! Well, in every private job you do self-evaluations as part of your um, your evaluation process, and every job you have to sit down with your manager, your boss, and you’re evaluated, you’re reviewed. Um, so it’s not unique to our profession…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: …and I think again, sometimes teachers forget that, and they feel like it’s just something else that poor little teachers are being asked to do on their plate.

Pamela: [laughter]

Speaker 2: And it is hard! It’s a very, very hard job. And again, going back to Dr. Strong and why he developed this system, he recognized that teacher’s jobs are complex. So this evaluation system, through are all his research, tried to address as many of those layers as possible to be fair to the teacher. So if a teacher just on a day to day basis you know has something they did really well that day, I think it’s not a big deal to upload to their


documentation log, but then they should reflect at some time, what they’ve put in there, what do I really want my administrators to see, not make it a catch or…

Martha: Right.

Speaker 2: So um…And like I tell teachers when I go talk to them about renewal, you don’t take enough time for yourself, and this is yourself! Because your professional development is not only your responsibility but it’s also a privilege to be able to do that. Um, but it’s something that you have to start because if you’re doing your job better, one person affects this many you know. You forget how many people what you do on a day to day basis…really do affect. So by…by…by saying to yourself all right today is going to be about my report card, my growth, and take that time to reflect on what you’ve included in your documentation log, what you need for your own personal and professional development, taking some time to look for that class, that webinar, that person within your building. Our teachers work together so well to share with each other, um, and to work on this data and plan together, they’re…they get that…Um but they have to remember it’s not just something you’re checking on, they have to realize it’s good, it’s good for them as a teacher, and hope that they will get to the point where they don’t feel like it’s something else they have to do or something somebody’s doing to them, that it’s a process that is going to help them grow, and their growth is not only important to their students but to themselves. So…

Martha: Awesome.

Speaker 3: That’s a lot of reshaping of the mind.

Martha: Yes definitely.

Speaker 2: So if there is any more materials that you would like at any time, you’re welcome to borrow, but I would say um, I do want to go back…

Martha: Is it okay for us to keep the PowerPoint...

Speaker 2: Yep.

Martha: …copies…

Pamela: That’s wonderful.

Speaker 2: And I can…but I’ll send it to your um email as well…

Martha: That’d be great.

Speaker 2: Um…Let’s see…Here’s our teacher evaluation from May…you know when we first introduced it…

Pamela: I have all of our original…


Speaker 2: Oh good!

Pamela: I have all of our original work.

Martha: I’m gonna stop recording.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Pamela: Yeah.

Martha: Okay.


Interview Transcript – 3/20/2015; E-MAIL, by Stephanie Watts

******************************************************************************

SW: How did this policy come about?

DB: I filed HB 576 in the 2012 General Assembly Session at the request of Governor McDonnell and then Secretary of Education Laura Fornash. This bill passed in the House, but did not pass in the Senate. It was continued to the 2013 Session by the Senate Ed and Health committee and no further action was taken on it.

In the interim between the 2012 and 2013 Legislative Sessions, members of the McDonnell administration and I worked with various stakeholder groups to try to work on some of the concerns that they had with this bill and reach some sort of compromise that alleviate some of their concerns.

Following these discussions they were able to draft House Bill 2151, which I filed in the 2013 Session. This bill passed with bipartisan support in both Houses, and went on to be signed by the Governor.

SW: What is the purpose of the policy?

DB: The purpose of this was to enact a policy that would put greater emphasis on enhancing teacher quality in the Commonwealth. This legislation would allow us to recruit and retain the best and brightest, but also gives us a means to relieve those teachers who are ineffective. This bill would require teachers to be evaluated either formally or informally every year, and would include student progress as a component of this evaluation. It also gave the school boards the option of extending the probationary process for a new teacher from three to five years to allow more time to evaluate performance before offering them a continuing contract.

Perhaps even more importantly, it streamlined the grievance process for teachers by making a series of changes to the hearing process. This was particularly important because it would allow for an expedited decision to inform the teacher regarding their employment status.

Our hope was that this legislation would help ensure that Virginia students have access to the best and brightest teachers. The yearly evaluations will give teachers constructive feedback on how they can improve their performance in the classroom, and offer additional support to our many educators who continue to excel. By offering flexibility to the school divisions and allowing for a more thoughtful examination before being awarded a continuing contract, it also would help transition away from the classroom those who may find that their talents are better used in another field.

I hope that it is also a step in the right direction for treating and paying educators like the professionals that they are.


SW: What is your role with respect to this policy’s development?

DB: I was the chief patron of this legislation in both the 2012 and 2013 General Assembly Sessions.

SW: Who were some other people [their roles, not names] or other groups interested in this policy?

DB: Governor McDonnell’s policy staff was involved, as was the Secretary of Education. There were also representatives from the VEA, the Virginia Association of Superintendents, the Virginia School Boards’ Association, the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals, and the Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals were all heavily involved with the discussion of HB 2151. The legislation was supported by the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Virginia Chamber Partnership.

SW: What are some strengths of the policy?

DB: One of the strengths of this legislation is that the final product was developed in consultation with so many stakeholder groups. They were able to bring to the table a unique perspective and helped us make sure that the impact of every detail of this legislation was carefully thought out. By working with them we achieved a result that received the broad support of the entire education community.

SW: How did you get “buy-in” for the policy?

DB: We got “buy-in” by being willing to negotiate and compromise with the education community. We started work on the 2013 legislation immediately after the 2012 Session and this work continued through the 2014 Session. There were a number of changes made to the bill that would help ease the concerns of the education community but still accomplished the desired result. The result was a compromise bill that gained bipartisan support.

SW: What did you envision the process would look like for implementing the policy?

DB: Implementation has already begun. Educators hired after its passage or who had not yet received a continuing contract will be hired on a probationary period for 3-5 years before they can be given a continuing contract.

SW: Is there any language in the policy that is bothersome to you?

DB: Not particularly. As the policy has been implemented we have found the need for a few technical adjustments and have gone back to take care of those as need be. Last year Delegate Tom Rust patroned and I chief co-patroned a bill that made a small adjustment to this policy. We remain open to looking at this as implementation continues and making technical adjustments as need be.

SW: What is your perception of the success of implementation of this policy?


DB: So far it appears that it is successful. I hope that as the policy continues we will continue to see more success for both our educators and our students.

SW: How will you know the policy is doing what it is intended to do?

DB: Ultimately, our goal is to see our students getting the best education possible and to see Virginia maintain its rankings as one of the top education systems in the nation.

SW: Do you have anything else you’d like to add that hasn’t been talked about?

DB: I think we’ve covered it, but please let me know if you have additional questions or if I can be of further assistance to you.


Interview Transcript – 3/20/2015; In person - Pamela Venable & Stephanie Watts

******************************************************************************

PV: Awesome. And (um) You already have a copy of the …. of the questions so I’ll just start and then we’ll just go from there.

RB: Sure.

PV: Awesome. So, how did this policy come about?

RB: Sure. So, when I was looking at your questions in preparation for this. I kind of … I went back and traced kind of … the origin of this code section and the acts of the assembly so most of what you see in this Standard Quality 5 … here in the statute (um)comes actually from a 2005 act of assembly (um) which was carried by a former Senator Russell Potts and former Delegate Jim Dillard. (um) And so, that actually pre-dates me …

PV: Okay

RB: I didn’t draft that so I can’t talk to the drafting of that part … it’s the bulk of that section which it says consistent with, etcetera, etcetera. Teacher, administrator, and superintendent evaluation shall be consistent with … and (um) then in 2013, this is what I did draft as a part of a much larger bill for (um) Delegate Bell and Senator Norman (um) they added in this important sentence which says “Evaluation shall include student academic progress as a significant component and an overall summative rating. (um) That’s sort of the genesis of where this subsection came about, legislatively.

PV: Okay so what I hear you saying is, in 2005 that student performance aspect was not originally included in the writing. It wasn’t included until 2013.

RB: Right. Until eight years later.

PV: Alright. Awesome. Okay, very good. So what would you say is the purpose of this policy? Teacher evaluation policy?

RB: Well, like I said this was part of a much larger effort. (um) To sort of stream line the teacher grievance procedure and also update the continuing contract status of teachers (um) in 2013 so you know I can’t speak for the general assembly specifically but I would imagine they were changes to this section on teacher evaluations because when you’re sort of making major changes to a teacher grievance procedure and sort of tweaking how they get continuing contract and a lot of that is based on their evaluations, I think you’re going to want …they want it to be really clear in the statute that evaluations include student academic progress (um) and not just overall student performance. If I could venture a guess I would say that the lawmakers and the policy makers (um) wanted to be clear in the statute that this is a nuanced (um) exercise


that evaluating teachers should be something ???? and include such things as student academic progress.

PV: Ok. Alright. Just in terms of this policy, the process what is your role? With respect to the creation … the development of the policy. If you could speak to that.

RB: Right. So (um) Again. Just speaking to that one sentence, (um) because I didn’t draft the rest of the statute like I said that was in 2005, but the 2013 amendments I did draft those. (aah) And you know that we have a … a sort of a duty of confidentiality with … with the members of the general assembly so I can’t go into specifics necessarily… but (um) this drafting process was I would say somewhat unique … (um) it was very stakeholder driven (um) …. I would say that, you know, the main player was probably the Virginia School Board Association was kind of the architect behind this bigger bill in general but also about this specific piece about teacher evaluation. And I feel that I am able to say that …. even that much because it in sort of refreshing my memory to prepare for this, I do recall that the School Board Association representatives actually held themselves out to be the drafter of this bill. Which is unique because I was actually the drafter but I … it … there was heavy input from the stakeholders, on this one. And so I would say that my role is more of (um) cleaning up grammar, flow, and logic and things like that. (um) And that is not always the case, sometimes when I draft a bill… I will be called upon to … I’d just get … could get a broad topic and you know, the member could ask me, can you just come up with something and I will come up with something and we will go back and forth. But this one was a lot more. Because the topic was so controversial. (um) it was a lot more here’s what we have, please put it in as closely as possible and just kind of clean up. You know … Grammar and syntax.

Ok. So in itself. It was written but just addressing (I guess) the nuance of the language and looking at the language and making sure it is clear and specific is what you did. Ok

PV: Alright. And I think you addressed a part of what question four says …. “Who were some of the other groups or people that were interested in this policy?” When you talked about stakeholders. (Um)The school board association. Can you think of any others, just in terms of people or groups, interest groups that were involved in the process?

RB: Yeah I think. (um) you know with this bill and with this specific issue of teachers evaluations. Really I mean anyone you can think of … in the education policy community is interested in that topic so I mean … The VEA, teachers themselves, secondary principals, elementary principals, superintendents. So really, just anyone you can think of. Because I think this issue is an important topic, policy topic.

PV: With reference to that, and this is just me. Alright, I’m a teacher not administrator. So I look at it differently … so when you say the writing of the policy … and you drafted, you cleaned it up. (um) Would you say that teachers were able to via VEA or teachers (um) themselves able to influence the language or the writing of the policy in the development, you know, going


through the development just say in terms of … speaking to the General Assembly member with reference to how it was created or stated or developed. You know what I am saying.

RB: Yeah, I think. I think absolutely. (um) I mean … Especially in the education realm. We have… I would say … Democracy is pretty healthy in Virginia. I mean (um) we have an engaged citizenry.(um) Who will definitely speak up if they have points of view about a controversial topics like this legislation was … and yeah, I think the teachers’ view points and the VEA viewpoint can definitely be seen in how this was eventually drafted and (um) I remember the legislative hearing process, it was very robust … a lot of debate and I am sure there were also meetings behind closed doors to hash this all out. So I would say that this bill probably … more than most was definitely a collective effort and (um)the legislative members definitely listened to what all sides had to say on the topic

PV: What kinds of things were considered as the policy was developed?

RB: Um …. You know again. I don’t know if I can say specifically what the patron … of this bill considered and discussed with me because of concerns about confidentiality (um) but again … I just think that, you know, when you’re talking about (um) teacher evaluation the general assembly just felt that it needed to be a little more specific about what goes into that and also what comes out of it … and you can also see that in the end, they felt that an overall summative rating is important so you’re looking at inputs but also in the end, you know kind of giving the teacher a rating on whether it’s unsatisfactory or satisfactory. I mean you probably know better than I do the different.

PV: Language. Yes the ratings. Exemplary, proficient

SW: I just finished about fourteen summative evaluations yesterday. So, fresh on my mind.

PV: Yes, definitely. Ok. What would you say are some of the strengths of the teacher evaluation policy?

RB: Um ….I mean This … this new language in particular about the evaluations (um)… I don’t actually remember much disagreement about this new sentence in particular about the academic progress and the summative rating so I would just say that (um) it made it through … as I said … a really rigorous bedding process legislatively and all sides seemed to be … at least (aaah) somewhat comfortable or amenable to the way that the language came out and that makes me as the drafter satisfied because that’s what’s important .. you know … if the end product passes both houses of the general assembly and the governor signs it then it gives me comfort that it properly expresses the general assembly and their representation of the Commonwealth

PV: Okay and number seven, I would say that it’s not applicable… gaining buy-in for the policy. (um)That would be more of a delegate question.

RB: Yeah and you’re right. I personally don’t have to worry about getting buy-in. But for this one, they had a ton of work to do to get buy-in


PV: And then just in terms of question eight, as well … what did the process look like for implementing the policy? That ties into implementation from the administrative side also. Kind of a thing. Alright. So, for number nine … I think you spoke to this a little bit but is there any language in the policy that is bothersome to you …. being the drafter of the policy?

SW: But you can give your opinion. (laughter)

PV: Yes

RB: Um you know … there often is … the legislative process is quick. I mean we have 45 days in a short session and 60 days in a long session to get on the education side … Now we are looking at upwards of a 150 bills. So it’s (um) I mean there is sometimes … things that make it into the code and that I personally wish they were worded differently but again … if everyone who is elected is okay with it then that satisfies me that it’s okay. And if it is not, they’re going to be knocking down my door saying “Why is this written this way?” or they’re going to be knocking down the legislator’s door and we’re going to change it next year.

PV: So it would have to be revised?

RB: Right. Yeah, so I mean the legislative process is … I think that’s the strength of it and why it really works because if something doesn’t really work, someone who it affects is going to notice and we’re going to fix it up next year.

PV: Ok

SW: How many people are actually the drafters of the bills? I mean, how many others are there like you who do the drafting?

RB: So, there’s me and one other colleague who do education. (um) We’re organized by subject area and I think that there are about twenty of us total. Just as many if not more subject areas. So people down the hall do agriculture and natural resources, and then someone does finance but, yeah … education, there’s specifically two of us.

SW: And do you have any other background as far as education for and being in the educational system?

RB: No, I (um) I’m trained as a lawyer. (um)We’re all … all of the drafters (aaah) have a legal background. (um) and so … there just so happened to be an opening in the education drafting section when I started here. So I just kind of got thrown in,I’ve been doing it for three years. I feel like I know a ton more about education now than when I started (laughter) When I started I could say … Well, I went to school once …. (laughter)

SW: You have a history (laughter)

RB: But that was about it.


PV: So, you’ve been doing this three years?

RB: Yeah, so this was actually … my first session when I drafted this bill … 2013 … so I’ve been through the 2013, 2014, 2015 sessions.

PV: Okay. Alright. What is your perception of the success of the implementation of this policy? What would you say that it has been successful just in terms of the writing?

RB: Right. (um) sorry. I feel like I am being kind of repetitive here. But, again … no one has been … no one has contacted me in the last three years that this section needs to be updated or it’s problematic (um) and maybe it is and I mean … you know the policy pendulum swings back and forth all of the time. And (um) I’m sure that it will be revisited in the future … in my tenure here …but for now … yeah I think that it’s ok. I haven’t heard otherwise.

PV: Alright and question eleven ties directly into that … you know … is it doing what it was intended? As the drafter of the bill … of this legislation no one is knocking on your door right now saying Ryan, this needs to be revised. Right?

RB: Yeah. Yeah.

PV: Okay. Do you have anything? (Pause)

SW: With that word, would you be contacted by the legislators if the wording needed to be changed or do you receive any public feedback?

RB: Yeah, (aaah) I receive … you know … inquiries from the public all of the time (um) my phone and email is easily accessible on our website. So, yeah I get contacted all of the time with all sorts of different issues. But … Yeah, normally if I ever was going to draft a bill about it that would have to come through the legislators

SW: So, Kind of like the chain of command … would be for the public to contact their legislator and then their legislator would bring it up and they would come to you.

RB: Yeah that’s right. They would ask me to draft a bill.

SW: But Upon approval by the house, right

PV: Okay. And that leads to our last question. Do you have anything else that you would like to add to what hasn’t been talked about? What we haven’t talked about?

RB: No I don’t think so. Unless you have any more questions for me or unless I wasn’t clear enough about anything.

Thanks given for the information and time. Hand shakes all around and departure.

rampages.us · web viewwhat observable characteristics define quality teaching? how are teachers...

Documents