The New Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

American Society Today has a great post up, that they have kindly allowed us to reproduce. If you're not bookmarking or following American Society Today, you're missing out on some great stuff.

As a result of Ohio House Bill 153, Ohio's budget, the legislature has mandated new standards for teacher evaluations. These new mandates apply to both Race to the Top districts and districts that did not receive Race to the Top funds. The Ohio Department of Education (ODE) was given the task of developing the new Ohio Teacher Evaluation System (OTES pronounced [ō-tĕs]). Ohio Senate Bill 316, the Mid-Budget Review made some changes to these requirements, so the requirements have continued to change. Despite these changes, there is a framework that has emerged as the basic structure for the system. Here is a link to Frequently Asked Questions about OTES from ODE: FAQs

ODE has recently released some videos on YouTube to help educate people about Ohio's new Teacher Evaluation System. These videos have been embedded below.


Ohio's Teacher Evaluation System-What's Changing?




Evaluation of Teacher Performance-How Will This Work?

 Evaluation of Student Growth Measures-How Will This Work?

In this video he does not talk a lot about the locally determined measures of student growth, which will be the measures used for the majority of teachers. The process that ODE has developed for developing these is known as Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), which he mentions in the video but does not explain. Here is a link to more information about Student Learning Objectives from the Symposium on Teacher Evaluations that ODE provided on May 25, 2012: http://ohioeducatoreval.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/slosymposiumpresentation.pdf
Here is a link to brief explanation of the Student Learning Objective process from ODE: Student Learning Objectives
Here is a link to the template checklist for writing Student Learning Objectives: SLO Checklist

Teacher Ratings -How Will They Be Used?

In this video he does not talk a lot about performance pay or employment decisions, which to many people are the most important topics related to teacher evaluations in Ohio. Ohio HB 153 requires that teachers who are rated "Accomplished" be paid more than teachers who are rated "Proficient." Also, any teacher rated "Ineffective" for two out of three years may not be renewed. Local districts will be developing these new performance pay systems over the next couple of years.

Like shoving a pig through a snake

Greg, over at Plunderbund.com has an interesting piece discussing the many, many "top priorities" attempting to be implemented in Ohio K-12 education right now. He lists common core, new state tests, PARCC assessments moving online only, teacher and principal evaluations, teacher retesting and the new report card grading system, 3rd grade reading retention, voucher expansion, to name just a handful.

Having so many "top priorities" with imminent implementation dates, makes their individual success less likely, Greg smartly argues, using business management guru, Patrick Lencioni's writing

Most organizations I’ve worked with have too many top priorities to achieve the level of focus they need to succeed. Wanting to cover all their bases, they establish a long list of disparate objectives and spread their scarce time, energy, and resources across them all. The result is almost always a lot of initiatives being done in a mediocre way and a failure to accomplish what matters most.

When a CEO announces that her company’s top priorities for the year are to grow revenue, improve customer service, introduce more innovative products, cut expenses, and improve market share, she is almost guaranteeing that none of those objectives is going to get the attention it deserves.

Right after reading this, we read this article in the Plain Dealer, titled "Ohio schools prepare for another budget hit"

For the past year, many school districts across Ohio have been asked to do more with less after the state budget suddenly reimbursed them far less for lost business taxes -- called tangible personal property taxes -- than they had been getting. While keeping basic state aid flowing to schools, Gov. John Kasich made the change to help avoid a multibillion-dollar deficit.
[...]
The state had set up the reimbursement plan years before when it replaced tangible personal property taxes with a different business tax -- the commercial activities tax. Revenue from that new tax goes to the state instead of directly to districts.

The result will be a fiscal crunch for schools for the second year in a row.

Northeast Ohio's 97 districts will take a harder hit than some other parts of the state.

They'll see an increase of more than $9 million in basic state aid next school year -- about 15 percent of the statewide increase. But they will receive almost $74 million less in business tax reimbursements -- about a third of the loss statewide.

It's challenging enough to continue to provide a quality education in an environment of deep, widespread, funding cuts, but when coupled with a huge list of "top priorities" it is a recipe for disaster.

What is missing from the list of "top priorities", and missing from the legislatures mid biennium review (MBR) is a constitutional school funding mechanism that will prove to be fair, equitable and adequate to implement not only a quality education for all, but fund all these other pet project "priorities".

The Governor and his legislature have placed an incredible burden on school districts and their administrative and teaching staff, and simultaneously failed to provide the requisite support. That needs to change.

Guest Post: Thoughts about teacher evaluation

A guest post by Robert Barkley, Jr., Retired Executive Director, Ohio Education Association, Author: Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents, Worthington, Ohio – rbarkle@columbus.rr.com

Thoughts about teacher evaluation

As it often has over the 50+ years I’ve been involved in public education, teacher evaluation is once again getting considerable attention.

And as is too often the case, many who are discussing it have little idea what they’re talking about – to put it mildly.

First, there can be no meaningful discussion of this topic unless and until the parties come to a clear and shared agreement as to what are the purpose and corollary objectives of education in the first place. Without doing so any process of evaluation establishes the educational purpose and objectives extraneously and inappropriately. Thus, in almost all cases, the discussion of teacher evaluation is entirely off base and counterproductive to say the least.

For example, I have concluded, after extensive study and discussions over many years that the fundamental purpose of education is: The purpose of education is to preserve and nurture an abiding enthusiasm for learning and an unending curiosity, and to first and foremost guide students to make sense out of their current reality.

Now one can argue with this conclusion, but the point is that for any evaluation of teacher performance, or the performance of any other worker, to be of serious consequence, such a statement of purpose must be firmly established and shared by all those evolved. Rarely have I come upon a district or school that has satisfactorily completed this first step of leading to any worthwhile evaluation system.

Second, most psychologists that I have studied I think would agree that most workers, and teachers in particular, want to do a good job. In fact, it has been long established that those who enter teaching have this intrinsic and altruistic drive to do well to an even greater extent than do those entering many other professions.

And if one accepts that premise, then top-down, punitive, and competitive evaluation will have greater negative consequences than positive ones. If that is the case, then a system of non-threatening feedback will be the most productive approach to set in place.

Over these many years the best of such approaches is one labeled “360-degree feedback.” In this system, once purpose is established an appropriate context determined, everyone in the system is provided feedback as to his or her performance from all directions. This would mean that each teacher would be provided feedback from students, colleagues, parents, support personnel, and supervisors. Each employee in that system would receive the same such feedback. This means that every principal would receive feedback from the entire faculty.

And let me emphasize the “non-threatening” part of such a system. This means that the feedback you receive is yours and yours alone. No one else would see it unless you choose to share it. The theory in all this is of course that, given a natural desire to do well and improve, we will all make appropriate changes and seek guidance when necessary.

Some would say this is a naïve and utopian approach. I have been involved in such a system. It works. And as one can easily see, there is no place for merit pay in such and system and it naturally encourages teamwork and collaboration, which are the hallmark of all successful enterprises.