|
David
Blount, Editor
The Teacher Evaluation policy briefing notes that a new teacher
evaluation system is emerging and in recent years, Virginia
has proven to be at the forefront of that movement. With issues
related to student/school performance and accountability largely
shaping public education discussions and decision-making since
the mid-1990s, a next logical step came with approval
of measures to enhance educator preparation and evaluation.
In 1999, the General Assembly approved HB
2710 and SB
1145, known as the Education Accountability and Quality
Enhancement Act of 1999, with bi-partisan support. The measures
make student academic progress an important component of the
evaluation systems. Key provisions of this law include the
following:
-
Required annual evaluation of the division superintendent
by the school board, in accordance with guidelines developed
by the Board of Education (BOE), which include, among
other things, standards and criteria for improving student
academic progress and providing for school safety.
-
Leadership standards, developed by the BOE, for superintendent
and principal training in evaluation and documentation
of teacher and administrator performance, based on student
academic progress and the skills/knowledge.
-
Criteria for administrator evaluation, to be based on
student academic progress and school gains in student
learning, as well as effectiveness in addressing school
safety issues.
-
Procedures for instructional personnel evaluation appropriate
to tasks performed, including student academic progress
and skills/knowledge.
-
Annual evaluations of probationary teachers.
In conjunction with these major changes, the legislature
also approved HB
1725, which states the General Assembly’s finding
that “appropriate teacher performance evaluations are
essential for effective educational leadership and personnel.”
In 2000, the legislature gave serious consideration to a
trio of bills that would have established an alternative continuing
contract employment process. Though the bills ultimately were
defeated in the session’s final hours, they would have
required teachers to apply to the school principal for continuing
contract status. Local school boards would establish procedures
for an application review process for making employment determinations,
to include professional credentials, employment evaluations,
classroom observations, lesson plans and examinations, and
demonstrated mastery of the relevant Standards of Learning
(SOL).
Prior to enactment of the Education Accountability and Quality
Enhancement Act of 1999, the legislature had only tinkered
around the edges in the evaluation area. In fact, most Code
provisions dealt primarily with employment status issues,
such as provisions relating to continuing contract for teachers
and probationary teacher status, rather than local school
division evaluation procedures and systems. In 1996, the General
Assembly approved HB 327, which directed local school boards
to adopt policies and practices to promote the employment
and retention of the highest quality instructional personnel,
and HB
325 which defined “incompetency” for purposes
of teacher dismissal. Both bills, after having failed in several
previous attempts, helped pushed open the door for ensuring
that local school divisions performed evaluations of personnel
and kept documented accounting of such performance reviews.
That same year, HJ
168 established a Commission on Accountability for Educational
Excellence and called for the development of a comprehensive
plan for statewide teacher assessments; the panel lasted one
year before its work was handed over to the HJ 196 Commission
on the Future of Public Education. In 1998,
HB 914, which required annual evaluations of probationary
teachers, was vetoed by the governor.
Given the important changes in the educator evaluation process
made in 1999, additional, significant legislation in this
area is not likely. Additional study or recommendations, if
any, could come from the work of the Commission on Educational
Accountability, which will meet throughout 2001 and is expected
to conclude its work by year’s end.
1994 – HB 1035 (term contracts)
1995 – HB 2117 (annual contracts), HB 2118 (probationary
terms of service), HB 2119 (competent teaching staff), HB
2121 (term contracts), HJ 629 (mentor teachers/plan)
1996 – HB 325, HB 327, HB 357 (term contracts),
HB 358 (probationary terms of service), HJ 168
1997 – HB 1877 (discipline matters/evaluation
deficiencies)
1998 – HB 914, SB 122 (alternative continuing
contract process)
1999 – HB 1725, HB 2710, SB 1145
2000 – HB 1412/SB 232/SB 549 (alternative continuing
contract process), SB 113 (local eligibility licenses), HJ
203 (study of peer review process), HJ 271/SJ 226 (study of
teacher grievance procedure)
A number of Virginia’s southern state peers have taken
recent action in the educator evaluation area. In Delaware,
a new Professional Standards Board was charged with developing
(by the first of this year) a teacher evaluation system to
include both an overall rating and a student improvement component
rating. Teacher evaluations now are required annually. Louisiana
has removed the requirement for DOE on-site monitoring of
local evaluation of school personnel but allows it upon request
of the state Board of Education, which also is authorized
(rather than required) to establish teams to review local
evaluation plans.
Georgia adopted provisions stating that teachers receiving
two unsatisfactory evaluations in five years will not receive
a renewable certificate until showing that their deficiencies
have been addressed. Mississippi accountability legislation
calls for state assistance teams to be sent to low-performing
schools. Part of such a school’s improvement plan is
a professional development plan for school staff members who
need to improve. Principals and teachers in priority schools
that do not improve after two years will be dismissed.
Federal provisions that somewhat address the teacher evaluation
issue (and other teacher quality issues) are embodied in bills
that reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA). These measures are S.1 and H.R. 340, submitted to
and being considered by the 107th Congress.
http://www.sreb.org/main/LegAction/legactionindex.asp
http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://www.ed.gov/inits/nclb/part5.html
http://www.nsba.org/sbn/
Click here for a policy issue briefing on “Teacher
Evaluation.”
Click cepi@vcu.edu to provide
comments or additional information. Please indicate in an
e-mail the copyright source and contact information for new
inclusions. Back to Top
Copyright © CEPI 2000
CEPI grants permission to reproduce this paper for noncommercial purposes if
CEPI is credited.
|
