Volume 3 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal for K-12 Educational Research - Page 16

14 instructional change through teacher evaluation based on general competency-based rubrics and student growth measures may prove to be a challenge: 1) late-career teachers, 2) secondary teachers, and 3) teachers of specialized programs such as special education and elective teachers. Educational leaders in Texas and in the District could use the findings from the current research study and past reform experiences to reflect on implications for practice. Recommendations for District Practice District leaders should clarify the purpose for T-TESS and clearly communicate the separation between the formative design of T-TESS and high-stakes personnel decisions. To reinforce this formative approach to teacher evaluation and address systemic function concerns expressed by teachers, District leaders should expand the cadre of evaluators beyond campus administrators to include District instructional leaders and teacher leaders (TEA, 2016). Use of these additional raters would alleviate issues with time and logistics, providing a knowledgeable group of evaluators who could serve as instructional mentors to teachers both in the core subjects and specialized programs. Deploying evaluators with specific content and program knowledge will improve observer capacity, data quality, and increase teacher perceptions of validity, reliability, feedback, and purpose. District leaders of specialized programs should develop supplemental documents to clarify descriptions of effective teaching practices for special education, advanced learners, and language learners to support application of the general competency-based T-TESS rubric. Additionally, professional learning and calibration of ratings for all evaluators of specialized programs would increase perceptions of rating reliability. As the District has identified student learning objectives (SLO) as the measurement of student growth on T-TESS, special effort to disseminate information on the use of SLO through district-wide professional learning is necessary. The District should develop exemplary samples of how teachers at each instructional level, content, or specialized program can establish, track, and use SLO data to improve instructional practices. District professional learning should include information on how student growth is to be defined and should account for variables outside of the teachers’ control in the measurement of student progress through SLO. District leaders should strengthen the capacity of the District to provide personalized, professional learning using T-TESS goal- based or rubric domain-based professional learning communities. Personalized learning could be expanded by establishing opportunities for teachers to observe peers identified as highly effective through T-TESS observations. Establishing expectations for teachers to expand use of T-TESS to include both goal-setting and improvement of instructional practice could establish a contextual setting for increased data use. To clarify confusion over the purpose of T-TESS, evaluators should be encouraged to engage teachers in dialogue using T-TESS data in coaching conversations, moving away from a check-list approach to conferences. Creating a strong connection between T-TESS data and professional learning may strengthen data use for its intended purpose and increase teachers’ positive perception of feedback. Recommendations for State Practice T-TESS has redefined the partnership between district and state leaders to support the design, implementation, and monitoring of teacher evaluation. In fulfilling this partnership, it is important for state leaders to collect and disseminate information on effective design and implementation efforts by districts across the state through the development of professional learning networks for district leaders. Providing resources and professional learning to 1) expand the cadre of teacher leader evaluators, 2) build understanding of connections between content and specialized programs and the T-TESS competency-based rubrics, and 3) increase skill in coaching conversations and data use would be possible through the state-wide Educational Service Centers. Development of exemplar case studies at each level of proficiency across instructional levels, within specific contents and specialized programs, and across student growth measures would provide concrete examples for study in districts that have implemented similar design elements for T-TESS. State leaders should continue to monitor outcomes of T-TESS and implement continuous improvement practices to refine state-wide evaluation processes. Julia M. Hyman, Ed.D.