Can More Federal Flexibility Improve States’ Teacher Evaluation Systems?

Another day, another U.S. Department of Education announcement updating how states can maintain their waiver from the outdated No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). At least, that’s how it’s beginning to feel. Are the Department’s ongoing modifications helping states and districts put stronger school and educator accountability and improvement plans in place—or are they actually making states’ implementation of this work even more confusing and inconsistent?

As a refresher, 43 states—plus DC, Puerto Rico, and a group of large California districts—successfully submitted NCLB waiver proposals to implement three “Principles”: 1) college- and career-ready standards, 2) school accountability systems, and 3) teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. By doing so, states avoid NCLB’s school accountability system requirements and related consequences. However, it’s been increasingly difficult to keep track of the Department’s waiver requirements and implementation timelines, as we’ve moved from multiple phases of waiver applications, to waiver-waivers (which allowed delayed implementation of certain “Principle 3” elements and clarified state assessment requirements), and now to waiver extensions.

Yes, state waivers approved in the first two phases of the Department’s waiver application process are set to expire at the end of the 2013-14 school year, unless states apply for a two-year extension. The Department issued initial guidelines for its waiver extension application process last August, which it then amended in November to require fewer additional actions from states.  Now, as the deadline for waiver extensions approaches, the Department of Education has issued another letter to state school chiefs recognizing that “some states need to make targeted adjustments as they fully implement” new teacher and principal evaluation systems (slated for 2014-15 for this subset of states). As a result, the Department is planning to ask state chiefs for input on how it can support implementation of their educator evaluation systems—and for states that have moved forward on full implementation, to learn what additional flexibility could be helpful to them.

But the most newsworthy part of the Department’s announcement is that for states who are requesting waiver extensions, but also proposing substantive changes to their Principle 3 implementation plans, the Department has decided to make extension decisions based only on Principles 1 and 2, with a separate review of Principle 3. For those noticing a trend here, Principle 3 has been the major sticking point for many states in implementing their waiver proposals. In fact, two weeks ago, Washington became the first state to lose its waiver  due to its inability to meet a key Principle 3 criterion, that a significant portion of teachers’ evaluation ratings be based on their students’ growth on statewide assessments.

To be fair, these new evaluation systems are a major shift for most states, and the Department originally approved many states’ waiver proposals with only minimal detail about what these systems would entail or how states would actually put them into place. Even states that began this work earlier, and with Race to the Top funding, have struggled to make the transition to systems that are based on teacher and principal performance—in part because of how politically-charged the issue has been, in part because of the magnitude of changes necessary and capacity constraints.

Allowing waiver states to modify their evaluation system implementation plans could ultimately help ensure that these new systems  provide more valuable feedback that drives improvement in educator quality. The question is where the Department will draw the line.

Making matters more interesting—as a recent Center for American Progress report outlines—the majority of waiver states (32) allow districts to make modifications to state-developed evaluation models or require districts to develop their own systems.  Locally adopted systems add another layer of complexity to implementation, as 1) many districts don’t have the expertise or capacity to develop reliable systems and 2) states must attempt to track, monitor, and support the multitude of systems that districts are adopting.

With all of these issues, it’s not surprising that the handful of states that have already implemented their new teacher evaluation systems aren’t finding much more differentiation in ratings than with their old systems, despite including more robust, multiple measures focused on classroom performance. Allowing waiver states to modify their evaluation system implementation plans could ultimately help ensure that these new systems  provide more valuable feedback that drives improvement in educator quality. The question is where the Department will draw the line for what implementation changes states can make. The answer could determine whether new flexibility gives states the room to make necessary, thoughtful changes, or whether it simply allows states reluctant to implement these systems in the first place to continue to drag their feet.

I am also concerned that the continuous modifications to the Department’s waiver requirements and state’s implementation plans make it more difficult for stakeholders to understand and track state and district commitments and progress on implementing their educator evaluation systems. In particular, when local stakeholders—who are part of the communities where these changes are happening and often have relationships with the districts and state officials in charge of implementation—are aware of state and district assurances, they can help hold local policymakers and practitioners accountable for meeting them. Although the U.S. Department of Education is attempting to monitor states’ implementation, and states are attempting to monitor the work of districts, having additional parties who can help monitor and encourage this work can only improve implementation.

In the same vein, if the Department is going to offer additional flexibility to states, at a minimum, it should ask states to report specific information to the public throughout implementation. States should be required to issue reports analyzing system elements that have been beneficial or challenging, design and implementation choices that may need to be revisited, and the overall rating results from initial implementation, as Tennessee, Delaware, and New Jersey have done.

It’s possible that I’m just being selfish—I’ve had difficulty finding information about some states’ progress on evaluation system implementation. But the more transparency and clarity we have about what states are required to do, what they are committing to do, and what they have already done (and when), the more successful the Department’s waiver initiative will be.