Leadership Matters - June 2013

Model 1 with the highest percentage (81%) on achievement gains on state tests resulted in the highest correlation with state tests gains. However, it also had the lowest correlation with higher-order tests. Model 3 with an equal 33% weight on each measure produced the highest correlation, .76, to reliability reflecting the year-to-year stability of teacher’s results. Model 4 had a .75 correlation to (Continued from page 10)

year-to-year stability of teacher’s results based 50% on observations, 25% on achievement tests and 25% on student surveys. Other important findings from this project are the following: 1) the student data that is being used needs to be accurate; 2) classroom observers not only need training on the instrument they need continual scoring practice with master observers; 3) observations should be done by more than one observer; and 4) multiple years of student achievement gains, observations, and student surveys should be used if they are available. The table above illustrates various methods for

districts to consider when observing teachers. The MET project states “Adding lessons and observers increases the reliability of classroom observations. In our estimates, if a teacher’s results are based on two lessons, having the second lesson scored by a second observer can boost reliability significantly.” Another significant finding was “Our analysis from Hillsborough County showed observations based on the first 15 minutes of lessons were about 60 percent as reliable as full lesson observations, while requiring one-third as much observer time.”

Very important teacher dismissal case for Illinois Senate Bill 7 A Peoria County judge threw out a lawsuit recently filed by two former Peoria School District teachers who claimed they were terminated improperly after receiving poor evaluations. This case contested the new Illinois law that places teachers in one of four groups based on their teacher performance evaluation ratings. Teachers rated as Unsatisfactory are placed in Group 1, teachers rated Needs Improvement are placed in Group 2, teachers rated Proficient in Group 3 and teachers rated Excellent in Group 4. Teachers in Groups 1 and 2 are not considered for reemployment if the district has a Reduction in Force (RIF). Teachers are laid off first from Group 1 then progressing to Group 4. The Peoria teachers sued because they said the district did not in fact RIF any teachers even though several teachers were given RIF notices in the spring. Chief Judge Michael Brandt ruled in a two-page decision the district acted properly when it pink-slipped Eymarde Lawler and Michelle Frakes at the end of the school year. Brandt held that “the uncertainty of enrollment and state funding were valid reasons for a reduction-in-force at the end of a school year.” The newspaper article in the Peoria Journal Star stated “Gil Feldman of Chicago, the teachers’ attorney, claimed at a hearing earlier this month a ruling in favor of the district would render seniority rights meaningless.”

11