Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 1

Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey Date: June 22, 2016 To: From: Sue Anderson, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) Gretchen Weber, Ben West, Re: Analysis of OSPI School Employee Evaluation Survey 2015 16 Introduction The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction s (OSPI) School Employee Evaluation (SEE) survey was created to collect and review educator performance data for superintendents, teachers, principals, and administrative staff employed by 295 districts in the state of Washington. Federal reporting requirements and state law mandated the survey and required all Washington districts to submit the SEE survey by November 13, 2015. This memo provides a summary of the results of the 2015 SEE survey. The data and analyses that follow highlight differences in teacher and principal evaluation results by district size and selected framework. This memo also analyzes the number of evaluators of principals employed by each district, the number of district principal evaluators who were previously employed as principals, and the variety of personnel decisions made by districts based on evaluation results. Specifically, the memo includes the following results: 1. Patterns for districts chosen instructional framework for teachers and leadership framework for school principals 2. Patterns in teacher and principal evaluations based on two-tier (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) and four-tier (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished) educator rating systems 3. The type of teacher and principal evaluation management systems (e.g., eval, other electronic system, or nonelectronic system) chosen by districts during the 2015 16 school year 1 4. The number of evaluators of principals and evaluators of principals who previously served as principals employed by districts 5. Personnel decisions regarding educator evaluations across districts 1 The Washington State Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project website (http://tpep-wa.org) provides a full description of the types of teacher and principal evaluation management systems examined in the SEE survey. Copyright 2016 All rights reserved. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 1 6255_06/16

Analysis of SEE Survey Data What is the distribution of districts by selected instructional and leadership frameworks? Washington state requires districts to select among three preferred instructional frameworks and two preferred leadership frameworks when conducting educator evaluations. The instructional frameworks are as follows: (1) the University of Washington s Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 2.0; (2) Charlotte Danielson s Framework for Teaching (2011); and (3) the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model. The leadership frameworks are the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP) Leadership Framework 2.0 and the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. 2 In addition, 2015 16 was the third year of transition to the four-tier system, so districts evaluated approximately 16% of teachers and 5% of principals using the two-tier (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) system. 3 About one-third of districts use each of the three preferred instructional frameworks for teacher evaluation (Table 1). Table 1. Districts Chosen Instructional Frameworks Instructional Framework Frequency Percentage CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 101 34% Danielson Framework for Teaching 104 35% Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model 90 31% Total 295 100% Less variation was observed in the type of leadership framework chosen. Ninety-five percent of all districts use the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 compared with 5% (14 districts) using the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model (Table 2). Table 2. Districts Chosen Leadership Frameworks Leadership Framework Frequency Percentage AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 281 95% Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model 14 5% Total 295 100% Most districts reported serving fewer than 2,000 students (63%), and only 8% of the districts served more than 15,000 students (Table 3). 4 2 For more information regarding the instructional and leadership frameworks selected by districts, as well as the evaluation management systems and rating criteria used by districts completing the SEE survey, please see http://tpep-wa.org. 3 The percentage of teachers and principals evaluated using the two-tier system was calculated by taking the number of teachers or principals rated using the two-tier system and dividing this amount by the number of two- and fourtier teacher or principal ratings (see Tables 8 and 9 for more information). 4 The smallest district reported serving three students, whereas the largest district served 53,317 students. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 2

Table 3. District Size District Size Frequency Percentage 0 2,000 187 63% 2,000 5,000 48 16% 5,000 10,000 28 9% 10,000 15,000 9 3% 15,000+ 23 8% Total 295 100% When accounting for district size, greater variation was observed in the type of instructional framework chosen (Table 4). Table 4. Districts Chosen Instructional Framework, by District Size Instructional Framework 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 61 20 9 5 6 Danielson Framework for Teaching 52 22 10 4 16 Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model 74 6 9 0 1 Total 187 48 28 9 23 15,000+ For example, larger districts (those that served more than 15,000 students) primarily used the Danielson framework (70%) whereas small (those that served up to 2,000 students) and midsize districts (those that served between 5,000 to 10,000 students) were almost equally likely to use each of the three instructional frameworks (Figure 1). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 3

Figure 1. Percentage of District Instructional Frameworks, by District Size 100% 90% 80% 40% 13% 32% 44% 4% Percentage 70% 60% 50% 40% 28% 46% 36% 70% CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric Danielson Framework for Teaching Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model 30% 20% 10% 33% 42% 32% 56% 26% 0% District Size The pattern for districts leadership framework did not change when accounting for district size. Irrespective of the number of students served (i.e., district size), most districts reported using the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 compared with the Marzano School Leadership Model (Table 5 and Figure 2). Table 5. Districts Chosen Leadership Framework, by District Size Leadership Framework 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 176 47 26 9 23 Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model 11 1 2 0 0 Total 187 48 28 9 23 15,000+ Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 4

Figure 2. Percentage of District Leadership Frameworks, by District Size 100% 90% 6% 2% 7% 80% 70% AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 Percentage 60% 50% 40% 94% 98% 93% 100% 100% Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model 30% 20% 10% 0% District Size Four districts choice of instructional framework changed between the 2013 14 and 2015 16 survey administrations. Specifically, two additional districts reported using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model and two additional districts reported using the CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric (Table 6). Table 6. Changes in Districts Chosen Instructional Framework, from 2013 14 to 2015 16 CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric Danielson Framework for Teaching Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model Total (2013 14) CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 99 0 1 100 Danielson Framework for Teaching 0 104 1 105 Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model 2 0 88 90 Total (2015 16) 101 104 90 295 In addition, 12 districts choice of leadership framework changed between the 2013 14 and 2015 16 survey administrations. Of these, one district also changed its instructional framework. As seen in Table 7, seven additional districts reported using the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0, and six additional districts reported using the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 5

Table 7. Changes in Districts Chosen Leadership Framework, From 2013-14 to 2015-16 AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model Unspecified Total (2013 14) AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 274 6 0 280 Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model 6 8 0 14 Unspecified 1 0 0 1 Total (2015 16) 281 14 0 295 Analysis of SEE Survey Data What is the distribution of educator ratings in each of the two evaluation systems? The SEE survey asked about the number of teachers and principals evaluated using a revised four-tier rating system (unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, distinguished) and the former two-tier (unsatisfactory versus satisfactory) rating system. 2015 16 was the third year of transition to the four-tier system, and districts evaluated approximately 16% of teachers and 5% of principals using the two-tier (satisfactory or unsatisfactory) system. The total number of teachers and principals rated as proficient or distinguished in the four-tier system was higher than the number of teachers and principals rated as basic or unsatisfactory. For example, 96 percent of teachers and 95 percent of principals were rated as proficient or distinguished. Less than 1% of teachers (96 teachers) were rated as unsatisfactory, and nine principals (less than 1%) were rated as unsatisfactory (Table 8). Table 8. Teachers and Principals Rated Using a Four-Tier System Teachers Principals Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 96 <1% 9 <1% Basic 1,590 3% 135 5% Proficient 33,852 70% 2,191 79% Distinguished 12,614 26% 434 16% Total 48,152 100% 2,769 100% Note. A total of 2,108 schools from 293 districts provided teacher evaluations using the four-tier system. Principal evaluations were based on reports from 240 of 295 school districts. Because of rounding error, column percentages do not sum to 100. Similar to the four-tier system, the total number of teachers and principals who received unsatisfactory ratings using the two-tier system was lower than the number who received satisfactory ratings. One principal (less than 1% of principals) and 28 teachers (about 1% of teachers) were given unsatisfactory ratings compared to about 99% receiving satisfactory ratings (Table 9). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 6

Table 9. Teachers and Principals Rated Using Two-Tier System Teachers Principals Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 28 <1% 1 <1% Satisfactory 9,297 >99% 156 >99% Total 9,325 100% 157 100% Note. A total of 1,093 schools from 157 districts provided teacher evaluations using the two-tier system. Principal evaluations for two-tier teacher evaluations were based on reports from 45 of 295 districts. Because of rounding error, column percentages do not sum to 100. Does the distribution of educators evaluation ratings differ with respect to district size? District size did not appear to be associated with teacher or principal ratings using the four- or two-tier rating system. Across districts of varying size, most teachers were rated as proficient using the four-tier system (Table 10). Table 10. Teachers Rated Using Four-Tier System, by District Size District Size Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total 0 2,000 <1% 5% 76% 19% 5,338 2,000 5,000 <1% 3% 72% 25% 6,798 5,000 10,000 <1% 3% 73% 23% 8,494 10,000 15,000 <1% 3% 74% 23% 4,347 15,000+ <1% 3% 67% 30% 23,175 Teachers evaluated using the former two-tier system were primarily given satisfactory ratings (Table 11). Table 11. Teachers Rated Using Two-Tier System, by District Size District Size Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Total 0 2,000 <1% >99% 965 2,000 5,000 <1% >99% 1,460 5,000 10,000 <1% >99% 1,840 10,000 15,000 <1% >99% 1,352 15,000+ <1% >99% 3,708 Irrespective of district size, most principals were rated as proficient using a four-tier system. (Table 12). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 7

Table 12. Principals Rated Using Four-Tier System, by District Size District Size Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total 0 2,000 <1% 5% 85% 10% 368 2,000 5,000 <1% 5% 82% 13% 440 5,000 10,000 <1% 3% 83% 13% 477 10,000 15,000 <1% 4% 84% 11% 238 15,000+ <1% 6% 74% 20% 1,246 In examining the two-tier rating system, one principal employed by districts that served 2,000 or fewer students received unsatisfactory ratings. Overall, most principals were given satisfactory ratings (Table 13). Table 13. Principals Rated Using Two-Tier System, by District Size District Size Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Total 0 2,000 3% 97% 31 2,000 5,000 0% 100% 22 5,000 10,000 0% 100% 15 10,000 15,000 <1% >99% 41 15,000+ <1% >99% 48 Does the distribution of teachers and principals evaluated using the four-tier system differ with respect to framework? Districts that chose the Danielson framework had the highest total number of teachers with proficient and distinguished four-tier ratings (24,835). Districts that used the CEL 5D+ framework had the largest number of unsatisfactory teacher ratings (43), whereas districts using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model had the lowest total number of unsatisfactory ratings (11). Across each instructional framework, most teachers were rated as proficient (Table 14). Table 14. Teachers Rated Using Four-Tier System, by Instructional Framework Instructional Framework Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric <1% 4% 67% 28% 15,793 Danielson Framework for Teaching <1% 3% 69% 28% 25,590 Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model <1% 3% 81% 16% 6,769 Irrespective of the leadership framework selected by districts, most principals were rated as proficient. For example, 2,132 principals employed by districts using the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 were rated as proficient, and 427 were rated as distinguished. None of the principals employed by districts that used the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model were rated as unsatisfactory, and 59 of these were given proficient ratings (Table 15). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 8

Table 15. Principals Rated Using Four-Tier System, by Leadership Framework Leadership Framework Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 <1% 5% 79% 16% 2,701 Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model 0% 3% 87% 10% 68 All certified teachers and principals are required to receive a comprehensive or focused evaluation each year. As specified in RCW 28A.405.100(12)(a), comprehensive evaluations assess all eight evaluation criteria and all criteria contribute to the comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating. All teachers and principals are required to receive a comprehensive evaluation at least once every four years. In the years when comprehensive evaluations are not required, teachers and principals who were rated as proficient or above in the previous school year are required to receive a focused evaluation. Instead of all eight evaluation criteria, focused evaluations only assess one of the eight criteria selected for a performance rating plus professional growth activities specifically linked to the selected criteria (RCW 28A.405.100(12)(c)(i)). Unlike comprehensive evaluations, focused evaluations do not include student growth impact rating. 5 In both comprehensive and focused four-tier evaluation systems, most teachers were rated as proficient. In districts that chose comprehensive four-tier evaluation systems, 78% of teachers were rated as proficient, and in districts that chose a focused four-tier evaluation system, 63% of teachers were rated as proficient. More teachers were rated as distinguished (36%) in districts with focused evaluations than in districts with comprehensive evaluations (16%) (Table 16). Table 16. Teachers Rated Using a Four-Tier System, by Evaluation Type Evaluation Type Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total Comprehensive <1% 6% 78% 16% 23,635 Focused <1% 1% 63% 36% 24,517 Note. A total of 2,043 schools from 283 districts provided comprehensive four-tier teacher evaluations, and 1,952 schools from 279 districts provided focused four-tier teacher evaluations. Because of rounding error, column percentages do not sum to 100. Irrespective of the four-tier evaluation type selected by districts, most principals were rated as proficient. Eighty-three percent of principals employed by districts using comprehensive evaluations were rated as proficient compared to 70% of principals in districts using focused evaluations. As with teacher evaluations, more principals were rated as distinguished in districts using focused evaluations (28%) than principals in districts using comprehensive evaluations (10%). Moreover, districts that used comprehensive evaluations had the largest percentage of principals rated as basic (Table 17). 5 For more information regarding comprehensive evaluation systems versus focused evaluation systems, please see http://tpep-wa.org. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 9

Table 17. Principal Rated Using a Four-Tier System, by Evaluation Type Evaluation Type Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Distinguished Total Comprehensive <1% 6% 83% 10% 1881 Focused <1% 2% 70% 28% 888 Note. A total of 220 districts provided comprehensive four-tier principal evaluations, and 108 districts provided focused four-tier principal evaluations. Because of rounding error, column percentages do not sum to 100. As a consequence of evaluations, teachers and principals who receive an unsatisfactory rating must be placed on probation. The following evaluation ratings will trigger probation: (1) unsatisfactory for all teachers and principals, and (2) basic if the teacher or principal has more than five years of experience in the principal role and if the level 2 comprehensive summative evaluation performance rating has been received for two consecutive years or for two years within a consecutive three-year time period (RCW 28A.405.100(4)(a), RCW 28A.405.100(6)(h)). In examining years of experience among teachers and principals rated as basic using a four-tier system, slightly more teachers (58%) and principals (61%) had five or less years of experience (Table 18). Table 18. Teachers and Principals Rated as Basic Using a Four-Tier System, by Years of Experience Teachers Principals Years of Experience Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Five years or less 919 58% 82 61% More than five years 671 42% 53 39% Total 1590 100% 135 100% Note. A total of 794 schools from 188 districts rated teachers as basic using a four-tier system. Principals who were rated as basic using four-tier teacher evaluations were based on reports from 61 of 295 districts. What patterns emerge when examining evaluation management systems across districts? In 2015 16, 39% of districts chose the eval teacher evaluation management system, whereas 34% of districts chose a nonelectronic teacher evaluation management system, with the remainder using several other systems. Whereas other nonelectronic systems were most commonly used in 2013 14, eval was most commonly used in 2015 16 (Table 19). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 10

Table 19. Teacher Evaluation Management Systems Used in 2013 14 and 2015 16 2013 14 2015 16 Teacher Evaluation System Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage eval 106 37% 114 39% Other system, nonelectronic 129 44% 102 34% Other electronic system 22 8% 43 15% iobservation 17 6% 20 7% Go Observe 14 5% 14 5% Teachscape 2 <1% 2 <1% Total 290 100% 295 100% During the 2015 16 school year, nonelectronic principal evaluation management systems were the most widely used principal evaluation management systems across each district (58%). The second most widely used principal evaluation management system was eval (26%). These findings mirror those from the 2013 14 school year (Table 20). Table 20. Principal Evaluation Management Systems Used in 2015 16 2013 14 2015 16 Principal Evaluation System Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Other system, nonelectronic 180 62% 170 58% eval 78 27% 77 26% Other electronic system 32 11% 48 16% Total 290 100% 295 100% What patterns emerge when examining evaluation management systems by district size? eval was one of the two most commonly used teacher evaluation systems in districts of all sizes, follwed by other electronic and nonelectronic systems (Table 21). Table 21. Teacher Evaluation Management System Used in 2015 16, by District Size Teacher Evaluation System 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000+ Go Observe 7 5 1 0 1 Teachscape 1 0 0 0 1 eval 77 16 10 4 7 iobservation 16 1 2 0 1 Other electronic system 16 5 11 2 9 Other system, nonelectronic 70 21 4 3 4 Total 187 48 28 9 23 Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 11

Irrespective of district size, districts least often reported using the Teachscape evaluation management system (Figure 3). Figure 3. Percentage of Teacher Evaluation Management Systems, by District Size 100% 90% 14% 17% 80% 37% 44% 33% Percentage 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 9% 9% 41% 10% 2% 33% 39% 22% 7% 36% 44% 39% 4% 30% Go Observe Teachscape eval iobservation Other electronic system Other system, nonelectronic 10% 0% 10% 4% 1% 4% 4% 4% 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000+ District Size With the exception of districts that served 5,000 to 15,000 students, most districts reported using nonelectronic principal evaluation management systems followed by eval (Table 22). Table 22. Principal Evaluation Management System Used in 2015 16, by District Size Principal Evaluation System 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000+ eval 50 12 9 2 4 Other electronic system 22 6 9 5 6 Other system, nonelectronic 115 30 10 2 13 Total 187 48 28 9 23 As seen in Figure 4, districts that served 5,000 to 10,000 students used all three systems at fairly comparable rates; also, 10,000 to 15,000 students primarily used other nonelectronic systems (56%), followed by both eval and other electronic systems. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 12

Figure 4. Percentage of Principal Evaluation Management Systems, by District Size 100% 90% 22% 80% 36% 70% 62% 63% 57% Percentage 60% 50% 40% 32% 56% eval Other electronic system Other system, nonelectronic 30% 12% 13% 26% 20% 10% 27% 25% 32% 22% 17% 0% 0 2,000 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 15,000+ District Size What patterns emerge when examining evaluation management systems by their respective frameworks? When looking at teacher evaluation management systems by instructional framework, most districts reported using eval and nonelectronic teacher evaluation management systems. Across districts instructional frameworks, few districts reported using Teachscape or Go Observe (Figure 5). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 13

Figure 5. Percentage of Teacher Evaluation Management Systems, by Instructional Framework 100% 90% 80% 30% 40% 33% 70% Go Observe Percentage 60% 50% 40% 22% 15% 6% 22% Teachscape eval iobservation 30% 20% 35% 42% 39% Other electronic system Other system, nonelectronic 10% 14% 0% CEL 5D+ Teacher Evaluation Rubric 2% Danielson Framework for Teaching Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model Instructional Framework Although most districts that chose the ASWP Leadership Framework reported using nonelectronic principal evaluation management systems, districts that chose the Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model were equally likely to use nonelectronic principal evaluation management systems and eval (Figure 6). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 14

Figure 6. Percentage of Principal Evaluation Management Systems, by Leadership Framework 100% 90% 80% 43% 70% 58% Percentage 60% 50% 40% 30% 16% 14% eval Other electronic system Other system, nonelectronic 20% 43% 10% 25% 0% AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0 Leadership Framework Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model How many evaluators of principals did districts employ? Most districts reported having one or two evaluators of principals. Specifically, most districts reported employing only one principal evaluator (54%). About 8% of districts employed five or more evaluators of principals (Table 23). Table 23. Total Number of Evaluators of Principals Employed by Districts Evaluators Frequency Percentage 0 30 10% 1 158 54% 2 40 14% 3 28 9% 4 14 5% 5 or more 25 8% Total 295 100% Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 15

How many evaluators of principals employed by districts previously served as principals? Most districts (224 districts or 76%) reported that three-quarters or more of their evaluators of principals previously had served as principals. Nineteen districts reported having no evaluators of principals who had served previously as principals (Table 24). Table 24. Number of Evaluators of Principals Employed by Districts Who Previously Served as Principals 6 Percentage of Evaluators Previously Employed as Principals Frequency Percentage 0% 19 6% 1 25% 2 <1% 26 50% 9 3% 51 75% 10 3% 76 100% 224 76% No Response 31 11% Total 295 100% How many evaluators of principals who served as principals were employed when accounting for district size? Across districts of varying size, most districts reported that 76 100% of their principal evaluators had served previously as principals (Table 25). Table 25. Percentage of Evaluators of Principals Employed by Districts Who Served as Principals, by District Size 7 Percentage of Evaluators who Served as Principals District Size 0% 1 25% 26 50% 51 75% 76 100% No Response Total 0 2,000 8% <1% 2% 1% 72% 17% 187 2,000 5,000 6% 2% 4% 10% 77% 0% 48 5,000 10,000 4% 0% 4% 11% 82% 0% 28 10,000 15,000 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 9 15,000+ 0% 0% 9% 0% 91% 0% 23 6 One case was categorized as having no response because, in this case, the number of evaluators of principals who previously served as principals exceeded the total number of evaluators of principals employed by districts. Thirty cases were categorized as having no response because, in these cases, the districts reported having no evaluators. 7 One case was categorized as having no response because, in this case, the number of evaluators of principals who previously served as principals exceeded the total number of evaluators of principals employed by districts. Thirty cases were categorized as having no response because, in these cases, the districts reported having no evaluators. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 16

What is the pattern of results from teacher and principal evaluations across districts? Of the 295 districts that responded to the SEE survey, 84% reported five or fewer personnel decisions based on evaluations (Table 26). Table 26. Districts Number of Personnel Decisions Regarding Teachers Number of Personnel Decisions Frequency Percentage 1 15 5% 2 66 22% 3 83 28% 4 46 16% 5 38 13% 6 26 9% 7 13 4% 8 8 3% Total 295 100% Twenty-five percent of districts used evaluation data to inform decisions about teacher professional development, whereas 22% of districts used these data to inform personnel decisions regarding teachers instructional improvement. Less than 1% of districts used evaluation data to affect decisions about teacher compensation or other personnel decisions (Table 27). Table 27. Districts Using Teacher Evaluation Data in Personnel Decisions Personnel Decision Frequency Percentage Professional development 267 25% Instructional improvement 234 22% Development of teacher leadership 156 14% Conversion from provisional to continuing status 146 14% Probable cause for nonrenewal of contract 94 9% Begin or end probation for experienced employee 87 8% Staff assignment 71 7% Promotion 18 2% Other 6 <1% Compensation 2 <1% Total 1,081 100% Of the 295 districts that responded to the SEE survey, most districts reported one to four personnel decisions about principals (83%). Seventy-two districts reported using only one personnel decision for principals (Table 31). Table 28. Districts Number of Personnel Decisions Regarding Principals Number of Personnel Decisions Frequency Percentage Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 17

Number of Personnel Decisions Frequency Percentage 1 72 24% 2 66 22% 3 81 27% 4 29 10% 5 19 6% 6 11 4% 7 7 2% 8 7 2% 9 3 1% Total 295 100% Twenty-nine percent of districts use evaluation data to inform decisions about principal professional development, 23% of districts used these data to inform decisions regarding principal leadership development, and 18% use these data to inform decisions about instructional improvement. Fewer districts used evaluation data to inform decisions about teacher promotions, compensation, or other personnel decisions (Table 29). Table 29. Personnel Decisions for Principals Personnel Decision Frequency Percentage Professional development 248 29% Principal leadership improvement 193 23% Instructional improvement 154 18% Conversion from provisional to continuing status 53 6% Probable cause for nonrenewal of contract 46 5% Staff assignment 45 5% Begin or end probation for experienced employee 40 5% Promotion 33 4% Compensation 24 3% Other 20 2% Total 856 100% In what ways are districts using educator evaluation results to make human resource decisions? In focusing on the three most commonly reported personnel decisions (e.g., professional development, instructional improvement, development of teacher leadership) regarding teachers, the pattern of personnel decisions did not appear to differ with respect to whether the former two-tier evaluation system versus the updated four-tier system was used. Irrespective of whether districts used evaluation data to inform personnel decisions, most teachers received proficient ratings using the four-tier rating system (Table 30). Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 18

Table 30. Top Three Personnel Decisions for Teachers, by Four-Tier Rating System Professional development Personnel Decision Instructional improvement Development of teacher leadership Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 74 <1% 81 <1% 59 <1% Basic 1,395 3% 1,323 3% 1,076 3% Proficient 29,360 70% 28,220 69% 22,224 69% Distinguished 11,041 26% 11,030 27% 8,919 28% Total 41,870 100% 40,654 100% 32,278 100% Similar to results from the four-tier rating system, irrespective of districts personnel decision, most teachers received positive (i.e., satisfactory) ratings under the two-tier system (Table 31). Table 31. Top Three Personnel Decisions for Teachers, by Two-Tier Rating System Professional development Personnel Decision Instructional improvement Development of teacher leadership Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 13 <1% 16 <1% 17 <1% Satisfactory 7,589 >99% 8,001 >99% 5,604 >99% Total 7,602 100% 8,017 100% 5,621 100% In examining the three most commonly reported personnel decisions (e.g., professional development, principal leadership improvement, instructional improvement) regarding principals, the pattern of personnel decisions did not appear to differ with respect to using the former two-tier system versus the updated four-tier evaluation system. 8 Notwithstanding the type of personnel decision, most principals received proficient ratings based on the four-tier system (Table 32). Table 32. Top Three Personnel Decisions for Principals, by Four-Tier Rating System Professional development Personnel Decision Principal leadership improvement Instructional improvement Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 4 <1% 7 <1% 5 <1% Basic 124 5% 102 4% 78 4% Proficient 1,969 79% 1,790 79% 1,497 78% Distinguished 395 16% 372 16% 334 17% Total 2,492 100% 2,271 100% 1,914 100% 8 Probable cause for nonrenewal of contract and staff assignment both were reported as the fifth most common personnel decision for principals evaluated using the four-tier rating system. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 19

Similar to results from the four-tier rating system, across each of the most commonly reported districts personnel decisions, most principals received satisfactory ratings (Table 33). Table 33. Top Three Personnel Decisions for Principals, by Two-Tier Rating System Professional development Personnel Decision Principal leadership improvement Instructional improvement Rating Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Sum Percentage Unsatisfactory 1 <1% 0 0% 0 0% Satisfactory 122 99% 125 100% 92 100% Total 123 100% 125 100% 92 100% Findings The distribution of frameworks has not changed. Districts did not appear to have a strong preference when choosing an instructional framework for teachers, yet this pattern differed when accounting for district size. Larger districts most often reported choosing the Danielson framework. Districts generally chose the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0, and 100% of districts that served more than 10,000 students reported using the AWSP Leadership Framework 2.0. Irrespective of the district size or the instructional or leadership framework that districts chose, the majority of teachers and principals evaluated by the four-tier system were rated as proficient or distinguished. Most were rated proficient. Although more teachers and principals were rated as proficient than distinguished, the four-tier system appeared to provide additional information about high-performing educators (i.e., distinguished educators) who are likely to be rated as satisfactory when using the two-tier system. Most districts used eval or nonelectronic systems to manage both teacher and principal evaluations. Most districts employed one or fewer evaluators of principals. The majority of the evaluators of principals employed by districts were reported to have served previously as principals. Personnel decisions regarding teachers primarily involved recommendations that teachers undergo professional development or instructional improvement. Similarly, personnel decisions for principals mainly included recommendations to seek professional development or principal leadership improvement. Examination of the School Employee Evaluation Survey 20