TALKING POINTS

1.      The Rhode Island Model for Educator Evaluation is incomplete and a rush to implement it for the fall of 2011 would be unfair and imprudent.

2.      The Rhode Island Model for Educator Evaluation places too much emphasis on test scores.

3.      The Rhode Island Model for Educator Evaluation does not yet detail how educator ratings are established.

4.      Some of the language in the Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities Rubric is inappropriate for comprehensive Educator Evaluation.

5.      The Rhode Island Model for Educator Evaluation attempts to create a one-size fits all system, which does not work for the enormous variety of roles educators serve in the state.

6.      RIDE’s message that the system was created by educators is misleading. At best, some RI educators had input but we do not yet know the extent to which their input is included in the final model.

7.      There is no appeal process in place for educators to challenge unfair evaluations.

8.      School districts will be responsible for financing the capacity to complete this model after Race to the Top (RttT) ends.

9.      There is a contradiction between teachers having to prove student proficiency and demonstrate student growth. If the students are proficient, how do they demonstrate growth?

10.  The goal-setting process forces teachers to narrow the curriculum to specific, measurable, standards, which reduces public education to mere training.

11.  There is no plan in place for using the RI Model to improve teaching and support educators identified as minimally effective or ineffective.

Overview:

All teachers and building administrators will be evaluated with the new Rhode Island Model beginning in September 2011. Teachers will be evaluated on three criteria: student learning, professional practice, and professional responsibilities. Scores in these three areas will be combined to determine whether a teacher is defined as highly effective, effective, minimally effective, or ineffective.

Teachers will conference with their primary evaluator three times each school year. The first conference will be used to establish the teachers’ goals for the year, at least one of which must be connected to student academic growth. The second conference will be used for the primary evaluator to provide comprehensive feedback to teachers and for teachers to modify their goals if needed. The third conference will be used for the final evaluation. Teachers will be observed informally three times between conference one and two. They will be formally observed once and informally observed twice between conference two and three.

Timeline:

June – November 2010: Advisory Committee and Working Groups helped develop the RI Model

November 2010 – January 2011: RIDE uses the feedback of various groups to finalize the RI Model

January 13, 2011 – Advisory Committee will be presented the first version of the Model

January 14, 2011 – First version distributed to school districts

RIDE’s Message:

1.       Designed by Rhode Island educators

2.      Builds a common vision of educator quality throughout the state

3.      Rigorously tested and continuously improved

4.      Planned to allow us to recognize and learn from our most effective educators

5.      Produces evaluations that are fair, accurate, consistent, based on multiple measures

6.      Intended to emphasize professional growth and continuous improvement of all educators

Response:

1.       We do not yet know if it was designed by RI Educators.  Some educators were involved in the process, but until the final product is released, we do not know to what extent their input is included.

2.      The dominant vision of educator quality that is exists in this model is based on students passing standardized tests. The very structure of goal setting, as it now stands, guides teachers toward emphasizing student test scores.

3.      This model is not rigorously tested. To claim otherwise is untrue.

4.      There is no built in mechanism for learning from the most effective educators. RIDE is in danger of assuming that correlation equates causality.

5.      These evaluations may not be accurate, consistent, or based on multiple measures. There are too many different scenarios to detail the inconsistencies that could occur. Measuring teacher effectiveness primarily on student test scores is inherently unfair. The incomplete nature of the Professional Responsibilities and Professional Practice rubric do not allow us to determine how accurate the RI Model will be. The goal of the RI Model is to base student academic achievement on multiple measures, but the system is set up to favor tests over other performance measures.

6.      We do not know how professional growth and continuous improvement will occur with this model. It is incumbent on districts to provide learning opportunities for minimally effective and ineffective teachers. This portion of the RI Model has not been constructed and will not be in place until September 2012.

There are more questions than answers with the RI Model for teacher evaluation.

·         How are schools going to have the capacity to observe every educator six times and conduct three formal conferences?

·        How is this model sustainable when RttT funds go away?

·        How can this model really fair when educators are evaluated on different measures depending on their grade level or content area?

·        Is there a process in place for educators to be protected from unfair primary evaluators?

Identifiable Problems with the RI Model

1.      RIDE is attempting to implement this model too fast. There are significant portions of the evaluation system which have not been finalized and for which RIDE does not have answers. It is not fair and equitable to implement an evaluation system that is, by RIDE’s own admission, incomplete.

2.      RIDE recognizes that there are potential problems with school districts having the capacity to implement this model. Its solution is to use RttT funds to fill the capacity gap. RttT has a limited shelf life, and when funds are no longer available communities will be stuck with paying the bill.

3.      The simple fact is that the entire process pushes educators toward using some form of testing to demonstrate student growth, no matter how RIDE talks about using “multiple measures.” This runs contrary to a decade of state work on proficiency based graduation requirements.

4.      RIDE is seeking in-house legal guidance on how to work with/around collective bargaining agreements. It are giving guidance to school districts on how to implement this model in a manner that enables districts to, in some cases, work around collective bargaining, or to work with it in other cases. We do not know what RIDE is telling districts.