Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/99010
Component 5 Update Local presidents discuss the reality of Component 5 At the invitation of Pres. Frederika Jenner, Sec. of Education Mark Murphy came to a December meeting of the Council of Presidents he focus of the single agenda item meeting was on the implementation challenges of DPASII-Revised, especially Component 5 – evaluating student progress. This was not the first time Murphy has talked to DSEA teacher leaders about this issue. With him was Christopher Ruszkowski, the head of the Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit (TLEU) at DoE. This unit leads the department's efforts around component 5. 6. Inconsistent and sometimes burdensome level of work required of teachers to grade assessments: A Measure B math assessment can take a teacher 30-40 minutes per student to evaluate, which amounts to 20 to 25 hours, whereas DCAS teachers have that work done for them. T Sec. Murphy opened by saying that he and others from DOE are meeting with many groups, including administrators and superintendents, and are hearing four overall problems with the implementation this fall of Component 5: 1. The quality of Measure B assessments and determining quality Growth Goals; 2. Technical glitches; 3. The impossibly short timeline this fall for districts to submit their locally-developed assessments; 4. Support, information, training and answers to questions from DoE were not consistent and sometimes even wrong. No one disagreed. Whereas a handful of districts – particularly the small ones – have agreed on a workable process for Component 5, the local presidents spoke to Murphy about their members' continuing frustrations, particularly in the following areas: 1. Professional conversations: The required professional conversations to determine goals did not happen in a number of buildings. In fact, in some districts, they may have happened in some buildings, Mark Murphy and Chris Ruszkowski take notes, saying that some of what they heard from the presidents was new information. but not others. Because of a lack of common knowledge about Component 5, there is a lack of knowledge amongst administrators about how professional conversations are to be carried out and what quality professional conversations look like. 2. Goal-setting: Administrators in some buildings are telling teachers what their goals are instead of discussing the goals with the educators as part of the "professional conversations." In some buildings and districts, state approved Measure B assessments were not offered as choices. With potentially improper goals, teachers now must wait until the spring "professional conversations" to discuss their ratings and challenge the results afterthe-fact if need be. One local president reported that some of the mandated goals did not even measure student growth! The teachers in one building were only given the choice between two goals. 3. Inconsistent availability of and access to student assessments: A number Measure B external assessments have to be purchased if they are not currently being used by the district. In the case of a district like Laurel, which is struggling to live with a muchreduced operating budget, teachers only have two Measure B assessments to choose from. In one dis- 8 Nov./Dec. 2012 DSEA ACTION! trict, Measure B assessments had not yet been given, and it is already December. 4. Teacher of Record and Student Absences: Disputes – still – about the definition of "teacher of record" and student absences. Murphy did confirm that absences mean absences in your classroom. If a student is present at school but is absent from your class, then he/she is absent. All agreed that everyone needs to keep their own daily classroom attendance records. 5. Training on Component 5: We all need base level, universal, uniform training so that there has a common understanding of the Component 5 process. Everyone should get the same information in the same way Murphy said he hesi. tates to mandate anything, but the group said, without uniform knowledge, implementation will continue to be fraught with problems that affect teachers' evaluations. David Davis, president of the Christina E.A., suggested that DoE ask administrators specifically how they have implemented Component 5 to help determine training needs. "Often," he says, "administrators are trying to be compliant, but are as confused and frustrated as we are." Sec. Murphy did communicate to everyone earlier this fall that technical problems resulting in poor student growth results should not harm a teacher's Component 5 evaluation. Without written guidance on this issue from DOE to the districts, there is no way to tell how this will play out in individual districts. That is a critical conversation DSEA continues to have with the department. Murphy added that: • Additional district-generated assessments can be submitted in early 2013 for DOE approval. Watch for information in February . • DoE is now developing short and long-term plans for training to be offered in 2013, to address ongoing Component 5 implementation from this fall, with a goal of making implementation next fall much better. • DoE wants to review Component 5 Challenges that are submitted by teachers and specialists to help them determine how to improve the process. They can certainly do that, says DSEA Exec. Dir. Jeff Taschner, but they cannot mandate that a district change the rating. Members are to contact their UniServ directors for help with challenging a Component 5 rating. Murphy encouraged all teachers and specialists to email their questions or concerns to Ruszkowski at cruszkowski@doe.k12.de.us. Please also copy DSEA's Dir. of Instructional Advocacy, Debbie Stevens. She is the one who keeps on top of developments at DoE regarding all instructional issues. She can be contacted at deborah. stevens@dsea.org. www.dsea.org