Order # 9580

tutorthammy

9580__________.zip

Home >Applied Sciences homework help >Order # 9580

Question 1 PDF.pdf

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force Los Angeles Unified School District

Final Report

April 13, 2010

For more information on the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force, please visit http://etf.lausd.net.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

The Teacher Effectiveness Task Force Juanita Arevalo, District Advisory Council

Justo Avila, Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer, LAUSD

Peggy Barber, Director of Governmental Relations, LAUSD (retired)

Ruth Bautista, District English Learner Advisory Committee

Ira Berman, Director Employee Relations, LAUSD

John Bowes, Assistant Chief Human Resources Officer, Office of Staff Relations, LAUSD

Judy Burton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alliance for College Ready Public Schools

Marlene Canter, Former LAUSD Board President, Independent

A.J. Duffy, President, United Teachers Los Angeles

Vivian Ekchian, Chief Human Resources Officer, LAUSD

Susan Hamilburg, Teacher, Canyon Charter

Jordan Henry, Teacher and UTLA Chapter Chair, Santee Education Complex

Mary Johnson, Parent Collaborative

Mark Kleger‐Heine, COO, Partnership for Los Angeles Schools

Reverend Eric Lee, President/CEO, Southern Christian Leadership Conference – Los Angeles

Byron Maltez, Interim Local District 4 Superintendent, LAUSD

Mike McGalliard, President and CEO, MLA Partner Schools

George McKenna, Interim Local District 7 Superintendent, LAUSD

Paul Miller, Executive Director, Teach For America Los Angeles

Ted Mitchell, President, CA State Board of Education/President & CEO, New Schools Venture Fund

Maria Morter, District Advisory Council

Marsha Oh‐Bilodeau, Coordinator, Peer Assessment and Review Program, LAUSD

Judith Perez, President, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles

Lydia Ramos, Office of Communications & Media Relations, LAUSD

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Bill Ring, Parent Collaborative

James Rosser, President, CSULA

Rob Samples, Field Director, Office of Staff Relations, LAUSD

Greg Solkovitz, Secondary Vice President, United Teachers Los Angeles

Ron Solorzano, Chair, Education Department, Occidental College

Tom Stekol, Field Director, Office of Staff Relations, LAUSD

Martha Suarez, District English Learner Advisory Committee

Maria Torres Flores, Principal, Bravo Medical Magnet HS

Julie Washington, Elementary Vice President, United Teachers Los Angeles

Dan Weisberg, Vice President of Policy & General Counsel, The New Teacher Project

Jess Womack, Board Member, National Health Foundation

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Contents Letter from the TETF Chair, Dr. Ted Mitchell ......................................................................................... 5

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7

The Formation of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force (TETF) ............................................................... 7

The Superintendent’s Philosophy and Priorities, and the Work of the TETF ........................................... 7

The Make‐Up, Structure and Process of the TETF .................................................................................... 8

II. Context and Considerations ..................................................................................................... 9

Teacher Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 9

Administrator Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 10

Differentiated Compensation/Career Pathways..................................................................................... 10

Tenure ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

Support Mechanisms .............................................................................................................................. 11

III. Task Force Recommendations ............................................................................................... 12

Teacher Evaluation Recommendations .................................................................................................. 12

Administrator Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 14

Differentiated Compensation ................................................................................................................. 15

Tenure Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17

Support Mechanisms .............................................................................................................................. 18

Legislative ................................................................................................................................................ 20

IV. Next Steps: Realizing the Recommendations of the Task Force ............................................. 22

Implementation Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 22

Key Considerations for Implementation ................................................................................................. 23

The Ongoing Role of the Task Force ....................................................................................................... 24

V. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 25

Appendix A. Quality Leadership and Teaching to Ensure a World Class Education for All .................... 26

Appendix B. Sub‐Committee Members ................................................................................................. 29

Appendix C. Works Cited and Works Reviewed ..................................................................................... 31

Appendix D. Letter from the Los Angeles Education Research Consortium .......................................... 35

Appendix E. Comments from TETF Constituencies and Members ........................................................ 42

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Letter from the TETF Chair, Dr. Ted Mitchell Dear Board Members and Superintendent Cortines, On behalf of the esteemed members of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force, the scores of interested public participants, and the district staff who have worked for months in developing this set of recommendations, I thank you for this opportunity to highlight the successes of the district and to help inform solutions to the challenges the district is facing. Even though our work was buoyed by a national and local conversation that has developed around issues of teacher and administrator quality and effectiveness, when we began our work, the task before us was anything but easy to tackle. I am happy to report that this group of people rose to the occasion and had frank and open discussion on sometimes contentious issues ‐‐ because we are all aware of the urgency felt in finding consensus on behalf of every student and every family in LAUSD. As this report demonstrates, the diversity of opinion, background and position added to the texture of these recommendations, and in a great many areas, we found common ground. There were a few places, however, where consensus was not reached, and in our report, we make these areas clear. As chair, my role was to guide and push, to facilitate yet challenge, and to ensure that in their final incarnation, this set of recommendations is the product of deep and reflective discussions, driven by data and best practice, and customizable for the local setting. A consistent theme of our discussions and deliberations, and critical context for the review of this report, was the understanding that no single aspect of these recommendations "works on its own." The Task Force felt strongly that the focus areas of evaluation, tenure, differentiated compensation/career pathways and support mechanisms are, by their very nature, interconnected and thus represent a comprehensive approach to ensuring a highly effective teacher in every classroom and a highly effective leader for every school. To briefly summarize the recommendations: Redesigned Teacher and Administrator Evaluation Process: The TETF proposes developing an evaluation process within a true performance management framework, including multiple measures of effectiveness (both formative and summative) – student outcome data, parent and student input, and an enhanced assessment of instructional quality. Differentiated Compensation and Career Ladders: Recommendations for differentiating compensation focus on a closer alignment between district needs and values with compensation and promotion decisions. Further, these recommendations propose the development of a new career ladder, offering high performing teachers the opportunity to apply for instructional leadership positions as coaches, professional developers, mentors, and other similar roles. Restructured Tenure Process: Tenure recommendations seek to restructure the process, allowing a greater focus on employee developmental needs and opportunities, and ensuring that the achievement is a true marker of a teacher’s transition out of the novice phase of his/her career.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Support Mechanisms: In addition to other recommendations, the support mechanisms proposals focus on augmenting early teacher support and intervention, further defining professional growth pathways for teachers throughout their career, and addressing issues of intervention and exit for teachers. Legislative Action Steps: Proposed legislative changes include those related to tenure (as proposed by other sub‐committees) as well as layoff education code changes, and dismissal process changes. Additionally, there are recommendations to address funding concerns for the district. As you can see from these summaries, these are recommendations whose impact is enhanced when considered together, rather than in isolation. I look forward to discussing these with you further and stand ready to help with next steps as you see fit. It was a pleasure to get to know the Task Force members better, and to have the chance to engage with them on such an important and timely issue. Thank you again, Dr. Ted Mitchell Chair, LAUSD Teacher Effectiveness Task Force

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

I. Introduction Educators throughout Los Angeles, across California, and around the nation have increasingly acknowledged that having an effective teacher in every classroom and a high quality school leader in every school are of critical importance to the success of our nation’s public schools. Indeed, of all of the elements under the purview of our school district, teachers – far and away – play the critical role in improving student learning (see Sanders and Horn, 1998; Goldhaber et al, 1999; Goldhaber, 2009; Rivkin et al, 2005). Studies suggest that the difference between an effective and an ineffective teacher can be as much as one year of learning growth for the typical student (Goldhaber et al, 2009). Multiply that differential impact over even a few years and it becomes clear why effective teaching matters. There is also broad agreement that many school districts do not do a good job differentiating between and identifying the needs of their teachers and administrators to accelerate success, address development needs, or intervene on persistent performance issues (Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern & Keeling, 2009; Donaldson, 2009).

The Formation of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force (TETF) Responding to this pressing need and in response to a Board Motion, the Los Angeles Unified School District formed a Task Force to examine successes and challenges related to employee performance and development. The April 28, 2009 Board Motion (Quality Leadership and Teaching to Ensure a World Class Education For All) brought forward by Board Member Yolie Flores, Board President Monica Garcia, and Board Member Dr. Richard Vladovic directed Superintendent Ramon Cortines to create a Task Force to develop recommendations for enhancing the ways in which the district ensures that the most effective teachers, administrators and support personnel work with our students every day. The Task Force, chaired by Dr. Ted Mitchell, focused on employee evaluation, support mechanisms, tenure, compensation and legislation. This group was charged with reviewing current practices; studying relevant research; and, developing recommendations and a plan for action to achieve meaningful changes to the Education Code, state rules & regulations, and district policies & practices related to its focus areas.

The Superintendent’s Philosophy and Priorities, and the Work of the TETF The recommendations of the TETF come at an important moment in time for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Superintendent Cortines recently articulated his philosophy for LAUSD. He envisions an organization where we know every child and adult by name and face; where we personalize the learning experience for everyone; where we never forget that students are our number one priority; and where all of our energy is focused on building and strengthening the relationships between our students, parents and educators. To actualize this philosophy, Superintendent Cortines has articulated the following strategic priorities:

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

• Data‐Based Instruction: We will use data to drive all decision‐making and ensure good “first teaching” for all students, coupled with support and intervention when students need extra assistance.

• Supporting all of Our Employees: Using the recommendations of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force as a starting point, we will cultivate the effectiveness of all of our employees – administrators, teachers, support personnel and classified staff.

• Transparent Budgeting: We will bring funding and decision‐making closer to schools and

classrooms. We will provide more transparency about revenues and costs, address equity issues that may exist in our current system, and provide schools with more flexibility to make accountable spending decisions that meet the unique needs of their student populations.

• Quality Schools: We will create standards and criteria that apply to all schools for setting targets, evaluating school quality and monitoring achievement— even charter schools. We will embrace innovative program offerings for students and families. We will offer families and students a variety of school options, and where good options do not exist, we will develop new schools.

In addition to forming the foundation of our efforts to Support All of Our Employees, the work of the TETF plays an essential role in the three other priorities discussed by Superintendent Cortines. Our evaluation, support and professional development must be aligned with our efforts in the area of Data‐ Based Instruction. Further, when we make the budget transparent and we put most of the decision‐ making power in the hands of schools, it will be the primary task of school communities to direct resources toward those efforts that support our employees in effectively teaching our students. Finally, the targets, school quality and achievement measures we use for our schools must align with how we evaluate our employees, and when improving our schools, effective teaching must be at the forefront.

The Make‐Up, Structure and Process of the TETF This Task Force, which includes our labor partners, parent and community representatives, private sector leaders, higher education partners as well as district leaders, teachers, and administrators began meeting in September 2009. The Task Force met monthly from September 2009 through March 2010 (see Appendix _ for meeting schedule) to hear presentations, review research and data and to vet and discuss recommendations developed by Task Force sub‐committees. At the outset of the Task Force work, we formed five sub‐committees, with Task Force members self‐ selecting their focus area based on interest and expertise. The sub‐committees (Evaluation, Tenure, Differentiated Compensation, Support Mechanisms, and Legislative) were also opportunities for other stakeholders to be active participants in the exchange of ideas, the discussion of proposals and the drafting of recommendations for review by the full Task Force. Each sub‐committee pursued a similar process of reviewing relevant research, considering current district, and debating and developing recommendations. Sub‐committee facilitators met regularly with one another to bridge the work of each other’s sub‐committees. Draft recommendations from each sub‐committee were presented at full TETF meetings, where Task Force members and public participants shared feedback. In some cases, these draft recommendations received general support

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

from the full TETF. In others, some members supported the recommendations and some shared concerns. In a few cases, recommendations were removed or significantly altered. In most cases, these draft recommendations translated into the final recommendations below. Dissenting perspectives are highlighted alongside the recommendations. A draft of this report was released for public comment on March 17, 2010. Constituency groups named to the Task Force were invited to submit brief statements on the recommendations (see Appendix E). All members of the public were invited to submit public comments prior to finalizing this report. Further public comment is encouraged. II. Context and Considerations As the Task Force deepened its knowledge about each area, several items became fundamental markers/elements of the conversation and recommendation development process. Each sub‐ committee reviewed current District practice, highlighted (as appropriate) promising practices within the district and from around the country, and raised concerns with the status quo. The Current District Practice and related Areas for Improvement with aspects of this practice served as problem statements for which the recommendations were designed to address.

Teacher Evaluation Current District Practice Teachers are formally evaluated using the “Evaluation of Instructional Personnel” form (commonly know as the "STULL") which is based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). This format allows for a choice of two final ratings: ‘Meets Standard Performance’ or ‘Below Standard Performance.’ During a teacher’s probationary service (commonly their first two years of employment), they are typically evaluated each year. Teachers are evaluated the first year they become permanent, and at least every other year thereafter. Depending on the size of the school, or the level, evaluations are often performed by the principals or assistant principals (usually in larger secondary schools). Areas for Improvement: Current Teacher Evaluation System

• Evaluation is one dimensional, relying only on administrator observation (Touch & Rothman, 2008).

• Only a tenuous link exists between evaluation and improved teaching and learning (Donaldson, 2009).

• There is very little differentiation between teachers in LAUSD with 99.3% receiving a Meets Standard Performance rating (The New Teacher Project, 2009).

• There are limited growth/advancement opportunities and limited consequences linked to evaluation data (Donaldson, 2009).

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Administrator Evaluation Current District Practice Principals are evaluated using the “Evaluation of Certificated Management Personnel Form,” which focuses on specific Areas of Evaluation (Communication, Dimensions, Decision‐Making Dimensions, Interpersonal Dimensions, Personal Dimensions, Punctuality and Attendance. There are only two rating options for each sub‐section and the overall rating ‐ “Meets Standard Performance” or “Below [Standard] Performance” Nonpermanent administrators are formally evaluated every year and Permanent Administrators are formally evaluated every other year afterwards unless an employee meets specific eligibility requirements and there is a mutual agreement to extend the evaluation process up to a 3, 4, or 5 year cycle. Areas for Improvement & Considerations for Changes

• Need to develop system capacity and identify adequate resources to undertake a major change.

• “Span of Control” needs to be addressed – how many people can one person evaluate? This is particularly important if the district reorganizes the local district structure in future years.

• Related to this, these sorts of changes will require rethinking the way teachers and

administrators are managed

• There is a need to foster a culture of service and accountability.

• If we are suggesting a stepped‐up teacher evaluation and feedback process, we need to be explicit in our expectations for principals to evaluate and develop teachers.

Differentiated Compensation/Career Pathways Current District Practice LAUSD’s salary schedule is a basic step and column system – which creates a focus on inputs.

• Base salary for teachers is derived from five criteria: Days of service; Credential status; Continuing education; Years of service, and; Post‐baccalaureate degrees.

• Historical basis: The ‘single salary schedule’ was developed in the post‐WWII era to mirror civil

service pay systems, the driving force being to create a more egalitarian approach that is less susceptible to nepotism, fraud, and favoritism based upon race and gender (Koppich and Rigby, 2009).

• Other differentials: LAUSD provides various other differential pay opportunities (many of which

are more output oriented): National Board Certification, Lead Teacher, Extended learning (summer school, after‐school, intercession), Athletic coach, Coordinating differentials (e.g., bilingual coordinator), BCLAD differential, etc.

Areas for Improvement: LAUSD Compensation System

• LAUSD lacks a systemic approach for developing, retaining and promoting effective teachers.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

• Lifelong learning & improvement is not supported by our compensation system.

Tenure Current District Practice

• Like most other districts, LAUSD’s tenure process does not filter effectively: Fewer than 2% are denied tenure, matching with other districts nationwide (Again, this does not take into account large numbers of teachers who are counseled out and resign).

• Teacher evaluation system does not provide an actionable moment for differentiation amongst teachers based on effectiveness: 99.3% received Meets Standard Performance (This does capture those that receive below standard or needs improvement in certain areas).

• Some feel that without a valid, credible and objective evaluation protocol, making more thoughtful tenure decisions will be difficult and changes to the system will be politicized.

• Teachers with Permanent Status are far more difficult to remove from the classroom/district:

Some studies indicate that fewer than 1% of tenured teachers are fired. Areas for Improvement: Tenure Situation The sub‐committee believed that the entire notion of and conversation about tenure needed a “paradigm shift”:

• Where are we now: People tend to view “Tenure” as either necessary to protect teachers or as an iron‐clad job guarantee. It seemed to some members of the sub‐committee that the current system assumes all tenured teachers are at the same level in their teaching practice

• How we think this should change: The framework for teacher tenure decisions should be about growth (as a professional, in a career), not about protection from or ease of dismissal.

Support Mechanisms Current District Practice The District currently has many avenues of support for teachers at different stages of their careers:

• Teacher Preparation: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment; District Intern Program; Urban Teacher Residency Programs.

• Test Preparation for Authorization Requirements: English Language Authorization; Subject Matter Preparation; Verification Process for Special Settings.

• Instructional Support: Instructional Coaches; Learning Teams; My Data; Peer Assistance and

Review; Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtI2); Teacher Training Academy.

• Professional Development: LAUSDnet; Learning Zone.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

• Professional Growth: National Board Certification Support Groups; STULL Process; Support Provider Development; Teacher Leadership Certification Program .

Areas for Improvement: LAUSD Support Mechanisms

• LAUSD lacks a common mechanism to identify highly qualified support providers (rigorous support provider selection process and training).

• LAUSD lacks a coordinated, comprehensive, accessible professional development structure (including preparation for leadership roles).

• Evaluation is tied more to discipline than performance growth.

• Professional development opportunities are not explicitly linked to professional growth goals or

evaluation.

• Level of support is often dependent on funding source. III. Task Force Recommendations

Teacher Evaluation Recommendations Recommendation 1: Teacher evaluations should include multiple measures or data points.

These multiple measures should include the following –

a. Teacher Practice: i. Should be clearly related to an accepted skill set needed to be effective (within

California Standards for the Teaching Profession). ii. Should have a rubric so that teachers know what each standard ‘looks like.’

(Charlotte Danielson, TFA, and DCPS have rubrics that can be used as starting points or could just be adopted wholesale).

iii. A major portion of the observation/assessment of teacher practice should remain the responsibility of (the) administrator(s).

iv. A meaningful portion of the observation/assessment of teacher practice should be done through a type of Peer Observation by other educators. (This concept needs to be further defined and would need support and training).

b. Student outcomes: i. Should be based on growth (e.g., a

value‐added approach analyzing several years of data) and also should not be solely based on CST scores, but should include formative assessments, etc.

c. Parent and Student Feedback

Comment on diverging perspectives: TETF members generally agreed on the importance of implementing a system with multiple measures. Perspectives differed on which measures should be emphasized, the appropriateness of certain types of outcomes measures (e.g., CSTs), and how to position the role of the supervising administrator with respect to the various measures.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

i. Should be a component of the evaluation process, giving greater voice to the ‘customer.’

d. Collaboration/Contribution to School Community. i. There should be a component that measures collaboration (i.e. impact on

grade‐level, department, school team) or contribution to a school community. e. Self‐evaluation

i. Should include a results & data‐driven goal‐setting process at beginning of the year measured for progress at the end of the year.

Recommendation 2: Increase the number of rating categories (gradations) available.

a. To allow for the identification of exemplary teachers and those needing guidance and

support, the evaluation tool should have more gradations than the current STULL form. Sub‐sections of the current STULL form offer three options – ‘Meets,’ ‘Needs

Improvement,’ and ‘No.’ The current STULL form currently offers two overall ration options – ‘Meets

Standard Performance’ or ‘Below Standard Performance.’ Overall evaluation rating (Currently: “Meets Standard Performance” or “Below Standard Performance”).

Recommendation 3: Evaluations should have real ramifications.

a. Rewards: Evaluations should possibly result in differentiated recognition, career growth

opportunities and enhanced professional responsibilities (e.g. becoming a Master Teacher, Teacher Leader, mentor, leading professional development).

b. Consequences (with close adherence to shorter action timelines): Evaluations should result in the appropriate possible outcomes, which may include any of the following – intervention with guidance, assistance, mentoring, professional development, effective evaluative support, and potential disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from District service.

Recommendation 4: Professional Development and Support must be tied to feedback from evaluation.

(This is further explored in the Support Mechanisms recommendations).

Comment on diverging perspectives: TETF members differed on how closely positive and negative consequences should be tied to evaluation results, with some TETF members concerned that an evaluation system with strong consequences may diminish the developmental focus of the evaluation process.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Administrator Evaluation Recommendation 1: Align the principal evaluation form and process to the current standards (California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders).

The current process (including the form used) is not tied to the most updated standards for school leaders (CPSELs). LAUSD Administrator preparation programs and universities that prepare leaders for the administrative roles in the district use the CPSEL to prepare leaders. This recommendation would address this current disconnect. Recommendation 2: Modify administrator evaluation process to include multiple components that demonstrate level of attainment of standards.

These multiple components should include the following –

a. For walk‐throughs and observations of administrators (e.g., of school, of principal‐led meetings with parents, community, students), the process should include the following:

i. Maintain primary role for direct supervisors (Directors).

ii. Create a role for peers to observe and offer feedback.

b. Teacher and Staff Feedback: Collected through surveys (possibly at different points throughout the year) with questions developed based on the standards that fit with their perspective.

c. Parent and Student Feedback: Collected through surveys (possibly at different points throughout the year) with questions developed based on the standards that fit with their perspective.

d. Student Outcome Data. Recommendation 3: Use additional rating levels to make the form and process more developmental and to acknowledge that there are different levels of performance.

The current form only has two rating choices for each of the six Areas of Evaluation (Communication, Dimensions, Decision‐Making Dimensions, Interpersonal Dimensions, Personal Dimensions, Punctuality and Attendance): ‘Meets Standard Performance’ or ‘Below Performance.’ Also, there are only two

Comment on diverging perspectives: TETF members were divided on how this feedback should be viewed. One option proposed is to create a cadre of trained Principal Peer Evaluators whose feedback would be explicitly evaluative. Another option is to structure those visits/observations as feedback and information only, more of a mentoring relationship. Further, members did not come to consensus on how to ‘use’ student outcomes data in the evaluation of principals – as information or as a weighted part of the evaluation.

Comment on diverging perspectives: There was general concern that (a) the Administrator Evaluation recommendations came late in the TETF process and (b) corresponding recommendations were not made as to how, for instance, administrators would receive support in addressing developmental needs. These recommendations need more discussion and administrator‐focused recommendations should be developed for the other areas (similar to ones in this report that focus on teachers).

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

rating options for the Overall Evaluation: ‘Meets Standard Performance’ or ‘Below Standard Performance.’ Recommendation 4: Develop a rubric to create common language and understanding of what each standard “looks like.”

Recommendation 5: Implement evaluation process for Local District Administrators using a similar approach that incorporates feedback from all stakeholders (parents, students, administrators, teachers, etc).

Recommendations for the teacher evaluation and now for the school site administrator evaluation processes are based on a 360 degree feedback concept, which could be used as the template for developing Local District Administrator evaluations as well.

Differentiated Compensation Recommendation 1: Develop career pathways that promote effective teachers and effective teaching.

a. After the induction phase of a teacher’s career, teachers should select from among a

number of career pathways. b. Career pathways should include preparation for teacher leader roles, which may

include, but would not necessarily be limited to becoming a content expert, becoming a behavioral management expert, mentoring novice teachers, coaching fellow teachers, school‐wide professional development, and/or acting as a peer reviewers in the evaluation process. It should also include preparation for becoming a counselor, an administrator or the like.

c. Career pathways should build our schools’ distributed leadership capacity. d. All teachers will pursue continuous learning and development; nonetheless, the decision

to pursue promotion as a teacher leader or the like should be optional. e. Promotion into a teacher leader role (and, potentially, into an administrative role)

should be linked to demonstration of being a effective teacher (to align with the evaluation subcommittee’s recommendations) and completion of other requirements (e.g., a set of well aligned courses).

f. Teacher leader roles should keep effective teachers in the classroom for the majority of the school day, while extending the impact of these effective teachers to other teachers in their schools and in the district.

g. Becoming a teacher leader should be a considerable promotion with substantive increases in responsibility and compensation (possibly through base salary increases and/or through an extended work year).

Recommendation 2: Restructure professional development incentives in a way that advances effective teaching and benefits students.

a. A teacher’s individual growth plan should follow from his/her evaluation (including self‐

evaluation, peer evaluation, administrator evaluation, and other measures) and the cumulative needs identified amongst the teaching staff at his/her school, in his/her grade and/or in his/her subject matter.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

b. A teacher’s individual growth plan should be developed in collaboration with that teacher’s supervising administrator and relevant teacher leader(s).

c. Professional development should… i. align with student, teacher and school needs, ii. center on the actual curriculum and the real day‐to‐day needs of the teacher, iii. incorporate active learning, iv. involve similarly situated teachers (same grade, same department, or same

school), v. be long enough and comprehensive enough to have real impact on instruction, vi. include follow‐up coaching to support implementation, vii. be grounded in an ongoing analysis of student performance data (summative

and formative), viii. directly effect the classroom, and ix. be evaluated for quality and effectiveness.

d. Teachers should engage in professional development throughout their careers. Likewise, incentives for professional development should extend throughout an educator’s career as long the professional development directly benefits students.

Recommendation 3: Create incentives and conditions that attract effective teachers to and retain effective teachers in high needs schools and/or positions.

a. Teachers with proven effectiveness in working with high needs students should receive

substantive financial incentives to teach in high needs schools and/or in high needs positions.

b. As long as they continue to be effective, conditions should support the retention of such teachers in their schools and positions:

i. To ensure consistency for high needs schools and students, such teachers should be protected from seniority based layoffs and ‘bumping’ as long as such teachers continue to provide effective teaching (to align with the evaluation subcommittee’s recommendations).

ii. As appropriate and feasible, such teachers should have additional preparation time, collaborative time with fellow teachers, and the like in order to support their effectiveness in the classroom.

iii. Investments and systems should be included to support positive working conditions which should include, but not be limited to the following:

1. Sufficient resources to implement curriculum; 2. A safe working environment; 3. Strong, collaborative and committed leadership with incentives in place

to support leadership stability; and 4. A positive school culture.

Recommendation 4: Explore the use of direct financial rewards for effective teaching if and only if it is done in concert with recommendations 1 thru 3.

Comment on diverging perspectives: Some TETF members did not support the idea of abrogating seniority rights.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

a. LAUSD could consider a pilot program where a whole school or a group of teachers within a school (e.g., a grade level team at an elementary school) are eligible for a direct financial reward as a result of meeting certain learning outcomes with their students.

b. Financial rewards should be based on multiple measures (e.g., not just CST scores).

c. Such pilots should NOT diminish funds that could otherwise be used for general teacher compensation or other school improvement efforts.

d. Such pilots should NOT put one teacher or group of teachers in competition with another. Instead, rewards should be ‘criterion‐referenced.’ In other words, teachers would be rewarded for reaching a pre‐determined and well understood set of targets.

e. If a pilot is implemented, a neutral third‐party evaluator should assess the effectiveness of these efforts both in terms of advancing student learning, as well in terms of impact on school culture.

Tenure Recommendations Recommendation 1: The tenure decision should be a deliberate action, rather than a default result.

a. The tenure process should require active participation by the school site

administrator(s). b. The tenure process should be based on a valid and revamped evaluation process.

Recommendation 2: Create a tenure decision window of at least 2 years and up to the initial 4 years of an employee’s probationary period. .

a. Change the time‐frame for Tenure Decisions from a fixed 2‐year period to a 2‐4 year window, where every year a decision is made to:

i. Grant permanent status ii. Non‐re‐elect iii. Continue for another year in probationary status

b. At year 4, any employee still in probationary status would either be: i. Granted permanent status. ii. Non‐re‐elected.

Recommendation 3: Move the tenure decision point from the current March 15th deadline to the end of the school year.

This will allow time for a fuller examination of status for the tenure decision, rather than the current situation which only allows a portion of the second year to elapse prior to the decision on tenure.

Recommendation 4: Streamline the dismissal process for tenured employees without abrogating due process provisions.

Comment on diverging perspectives: While most TETF members were open to a pilot that meets these criteria, some TETF members did not support the idea of tying pay directly to student outcomes. Still others thought these recommendations were too timid, and that we should explore performance pay more aggressively.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

The sub‐committee felt that by addressing some issues with the implementation of the tenured employee dismissal process, the district can make tenure a lower stakes decision point. Recommendation 5: Implement recurring re‐examination of tenured teachers for progression along their respective career paths.

a. This should be based on 360 degree evaluation and a body of work in pursuit of a

defined career pathway. b. There should be a higher threshold than the initial “tenure” period. c. There should be differentiated outcome of this re‐examination period:

i. Increase reward/responsibility level based on career development in chosen pathway.

ii. Continue with status‐quo – reaffirm tenure/permanency – keep developing in career pathway.

iii. Put back in probationary status if not attaining necessary growth and development in career pathway.

(Aligns with Recommendation 1 from Differentiated Compensation Sub‐Committee). Recommendation 6: Use non‐re‐election data to inform recruitment and selection methods and decisions.

Examine data on the recruitment sources and hiring decision/process for those employees who are non‐ reelected to improve future selection decisions.

Support Mechanisms Recommendation 1: Develop and support teacher leaders.

a. Establish a collaborative (minimally to include representatives of the District, AALA, &

UTLA) to develop criteria to identify teacher leaders such as the ability to demonstrate excellence in teaching, to contribute positively and constructively to a school’s vision and improvement strategy, and to engage others to move towards the vision.

b. Identify and utilize roles such as department chair, SLC lead teacher, coach, Chapter Chair, coordinator, grade level chair, consulting teacher, facilitator (e.g., site Learning Team facilitators), and support provider as opportunities to function as a leader.

c. Create a structure where distinguished teachers assume the responsibility to effectively support their peers in areas such as induction experiences for novice teachers, working with teachers to improve their practice, modeling and demonstration of exemplary practices, and designing professional development that advances student learning.

d. Utilize teacher leadership experiences as necessary components of National Board Certification, teacher leader certification programs, and administrative readiness.

e. Provide differentiated recognition and/or compensation to those who demonstrate leadership with evidence and accountability. (Supports Recommendation 1 from Differentiated Compensation).

Comment on diverging perspectives: Some TETF members did not support the idea of removing the permanent status of employees.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

f. Partner with universities, state and federal agencies, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, other professional/educational entities, and/or other local agencies to coordinate teacher leader development.

Recommendation 2: Require intensive instructional support for every novice (probationary) teacher during the induction phase of their LAUSD teaching career aligned to evaluation.

a. Required in year one for every novice (probationary) teacher. b. Guided by common standards for effective teaching (e.g., California Standards for the

Teaching Profession) and the continuum of teacher development. c. Provided by administrators and peers identified as effective teachers. d. Differentiated, based on each novice (probationary) teacher’s needs. e. Following intensive support, a joint panel of administrator and teacher representatives

(e.g. PAR Panel) share findings with the evaluating administrator regarding the novice (probationary) teacher’s participation in the program. (Supports Recommendation 1 from Tenure).

Recommendation 3: Implement a seamless, common structure aligned to evaluation to support teachers once tenured.

a. Establish and provide support services and opportunities for teachers to develop in the

career paths they choose. (Supports Recommendation 1 from Differentiated Compensation).

b. Continue to offer support to positively evaluated teachers volunteering for assistance to reflect and improve on their current practice.

c. Continue mandated peer assistance for classroom teachers who receive overall below standard evaluations.

d. Refer teachers for intervention services based on identified instructional areas in need of improvement as indicated on the evaluation.

e. Establish a process for school site teacher leaders to refer peers for intervention services.

Recommendation 4: Institute a comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible professional growth structure aligned to clear standards of practice (e.g., California Standards for the Teaching Profession) to support effective teaching.

a. Advances District initiatives and career paths. (Supports Recommendation 2 from

Differentiated Compensation). b. Addresses evaluation needs. (Supports Recommendation 4 from Evaluation &

Recommendation 2 from Differentiated Compensation). c. Offers multiple approaches such as carefully crafted online modules/classes, face to face

sessions, action research, conferences, seminars, institutes, and locally developed and implemented professional development based on school site data.

d. Professional development must address key elements found in documents such as the Quality of Teaching and Learning Rubric, California Standards for the Teaching Profession, and the National Staff Development Council Standards while:

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

i. explicitly embedding and addressing supports for Special Education, Positive Behavior Support, Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education, asset building with students and families (working with families) and academic scaffolds for English learners);

ii. engaging participants at a high level of intensity connecting to participants’ prior knowledge and experience while focusing on student achievement;

iii. analyzing the research on how the training topic supports student achievement to build background knowledge and application of training topic and to address teaching for understanding and diversity;

iv. providing demonstration and modeling of the strategy with high levels of participant engagement;

v. providing opportunities for frequent and structured dialogue with colleagues with time to plan and determine how new learning will improve student achievement in classrooms and at school sites; and,

vi. allowing for time to plan and determine how participants will obtain feedback on implementation (e.g., job‐embedded coaching and reflection). (Supports recommendation 2 of Differentiated Compensation Subcommittee).

e. Frontload the school year with targeted professional development prior to the first day of instruction (similar to the Ten Schools model) to guide the instructional focus for the year based on school site data.

Recommendation 5: Strengthen voluntary and involuntary exit processes.

a. Establish an Alternative Career Liaison to assist teachers who are considering a career

change and provide counseling/resources for voluntary retirement or resignation. b. Analyze multiple sources of teacher behavior data for predictors of persistent poor

performance in an effort to develop a more sensitive early warning system to provide support and resources for corrective action and/or alternative exit strategies.

c. Utilize the recommendations of the PAR joint governance Panel regarding findings on the mandatory participants’ participation in the program to assist with determining appropriate next steps or exit strategies.

d. Activate the dismissal process for those unable to improve after intensive intervention (Supports Recommendation 3 from Evaluation).

Legislative

Recommendation 1: Develop a five‐year Legislative Action Plan to fund California schools competitively.

The Governor and the State Legislature should pass a 5‐year Legislative Action plan to have California continually rank amongst the top states in per‐pupil funding. The action plan would set funding level targets and enabling funding changes to assure that in a 5‐year period, California school districts have a competitive base of funding as compared to all other states. Currently California ranks approximately

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

49th in per pupil funding, and this new California Master Plan for Competitive funding will drive the goals to assure academic success for all students. Recommendation 2: The Commission on Professional Competence should be eliminated or amended.

a. Ideally, legislation should seek to eliminate the

Commission on Professional Competence. b. Alternatively, legislation should make the decisions

coming from the Commission on Professional Competence advisory with the School Board making the final decision.

c. Further, panel composition should be adjusted to include other key stakeholders, including parents and community members.

Recommendation 3: The probation period should be extended.

Expand the probationary period from the current two years to four years. Further, extend the decision deadline from March 15 to the end of the school year. Recommendation 4: Revise layoff criteria to include quality measures, and high needs schools and positions.

a. The law should allow employee quality indicators, as potentially measured by a future

evaluation system (which would include input from students, parents, expert teachers and administrators), to be used as a criterion in layoffs alongside seniority. As an example, if a future evaluation system can identify all elementary teachers on a spectrum from least to most effective, then by seniority we could proceed with a layoff of the least senior ineffective teachers.

b. School districts should be permitted to skip teachers at certain underserved school sites or high needs positions in order to attract and retain qualified teachers in low performing and high needs schools/positions. Similarly, school districts should be permitted to consider school needs in layoff decisions, such as the potential impact of losing most members of a particular department, or losing a teacher with special skills or training.

Recommendation 5: The permanent teacher hearing process in the case of layoffs should be amended.

Amend the existing Education Code to allow districts and unions to amend the Hearing procedures to limit the number of employees in attendance to 75 or less in school districts with an ADA over 400,000. Recommendation 6: Amend the existing law to allow evidence of successful passage of the PRAXIS or other deemed equivalent examination to substitute for the California Subject Examination for Teachers (CSET).

Allowing the PRAXIS to substitute for the CSET would ensure that teaching candidates who can be effective with students will not be unnecessarily screened out.

Comment on diverging perspectives: The notion of eliminating the Commission on Professional Competence was not supported by all TETF members.

Comment on diverging perspectives: This recommendation was not supported by all Task Force members.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Note: The TETF also considered a recommendation supporting efforts to implement five fewer days of instruction in an effort to close the budget gap. Ultimately, though, the prevailing perspective was that this does not fit within the overall thrust of the other recommendations or the general purview of the TETF. Further, several TETF members were not supportive of the idea of reducing the number of instructional days.

IV. Next Steps: Realizing the Recommendations of the Task Force The work of the TETF provides an important step toward ensuring that every child in this District has the opportunity to learn from effective educators. Now, the Superintendent and district staff must take these recommendations, and work toward putting them into practice in partnership with the very stakeholder groups who worked together on this Task Force.

Implementation Goals and Objectives These recommendations will now guide the implementation of a comprehensive approach to how LAUSD prepares, hires, distributes, supports, retains and promotes our employees. To that end, we have articulated the following overall goal: Every LAUSD classroom should be led by an effective teacher, and every school should be led by an effective principal and leadership team. To meet this goal, we recommend that the Superintendent develop a multi‐year, multi‐phase implementation plan that will pursue the following objectives, with clear and regular targets identified for progress toward the overall goal:

• Starting with a small subset of schools and employees, LAUSD should begin by implementing parts of the revised teacher evaluation system – a standardized and objective teacher evaluation with multiple‐measures of effectiveness, including teacher practice and student outcomes.

• Simultaneously, LAUSD should develop a plan to ensure that State Law, Federal Law, Board Policy and LAUSD Collective Bargaining Agreements support LAUSD’s certificated employee management and development systems in alignment with the recommendations of the TETF.

• Next, LAUSD should move to implement all elements of the redesigned certificated employee

management and development system (evaluation, compensation, support and tenure) in a representative subset of LAUSD schools.

• After making adjustments based upon implementation in a representative subset of schools,

LAUSD place all schools under the redesigned certificated employee management and development system.

• Finally, LAUSD should utilize the information gathered from system‐wide implementation to

identify the number and percentage of effective teachers, and the number and percentage of schools led by effective principals and leadership teams. LAUSD should then set yearly targets

A note on timing: The Superintendent’s implementation plan should articulate explicit dates for goals and objectives.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

to meet the goal of having an effective teacher in every classroom, and an effective principal and school leadership team in every school.

Key Considerations for Implementation Task Force members articulated several important considerations for the implementation process:

• Capacity and resource needs: TETF members highlighted the need to carefully consider the capacity and resource needs required to effectively plan and implement these recommendations. Such considerations include, but are not limited to funding, Central Office staff capacity to support implementation, competing demands on school administrators and workload levels for teachers.

• Capacity building and training needs: TETF members similarly emphasized the need to build the capacity of all employees impacted by these recommendations, and, in that vein, to appropriately train teachers, administrators, teacher leaders, support personnel, central office staff and local district staff as new systems and approaches are rolled out. Further, TETF members highlighted the importance of ensuring that careful attention be given to ensuring that supervisors and others involved in evaluation and support have manageable ‘caseloads’ to be effective in their roles.

• The importance of choosing the right measures: As a key component of the employee

development system, the TETF zeroed in on the importance of engaging in selecting the ‘right’ set of measures for assessing employee effectiveness. To identify and decide how to utilize those measures, TETF members recommended seeking guidance from the research community and vetting various approaches with key stakeholder groups.

• Role of site administrators: While the new approaches proposed distribute leadership to

teachers, and create opportunities for student and parent input, TETF members felt it important to carefully consider and articulate the central role of site administrators in the evaluation and development of school site employees.

• Implementation in phases with a clear timeline for going ‘district‐wide’: TETF members

underscored the importance of implementing these recommendations in small subsets of schools to ‘work out the kinks’ and, in some cases, to try out alternative approaches to see what works best, while at the same time ensuring that such efforts were clearly designed to prepare for district‐wide implementation.

• Build on existing infrastructure: Where possible and appropriate, implementation efforts

should build on existing infrastructure, such as programs or initiatives that are already in place that can be aligned to TETF recommendations.

• Leverage existing expertise: Both inside LAUSD and in the Greater Los Angeles community,

there is expertise that can be leveraged to support implementation. For instance, as we consider how best to use student outcomes to measure teacher effectiveness, we can develop a technical committee of researchers at LAUSD and at universities in the Los Angeles area who would provide methodological advice.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

The Ongoing Role of the Task Force The Teacher Effectiveness Task Force will play a critical and ongoing role in LAUSD’s efforts to create a truly world class education for our students.

• Engaging our key stakeholders: The TETF includes members of many of our major stakeholder groups in LAUSD. TETF members will engage their constituencies in discussions about these recommendations. As we work toward and begin implementing these recommendations, TETF members will collect feedback from their constituencies and communicate those to staff. Implementation will be an iterative process requiring ongoing feedback and retooling as we work toward policies, systems and processes that achieve the best possible results for our students.

• Informing and participating in implementation: Certain TETF members will have a formal role in the implementation process. For instance, our unions will be asked to consider revisions to collective bargaining agreements. Further, some TETF members will be asked to manage and implement certain recommendations. All TETF members will be involved in advising staff on the implementation process and providing ongoing feedback as we phase these recommendations in to our daily practice.

• Holding staff accountable for implementation goals and objectives: TETF members will play a

critical role in ensuring that we meet the aforementioned goals and objectives. Over at least the next three years, we intend to hold quarterly TETF meetings to provide updates to and get feedback from Task Force members on the progress of this work.

A Starting Point for Addressing the Effectiveness of All LAUSD Employees While the TETF recommendations center mostly on teachers and provide some recommendations for administrators, these recommendations and the work that follows from them will serve as a basis for addressing the effectiveness of all of our employees – teachers, administrators, support personnel and classified staff.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

V. Appendices

Appendix A. Quality Leadership and Teaching to Ensure a World Class Education for All Appendix B. Sub‐Committee Membership Appendix C. Works Cited and Works Reviewed Appendix D. Letter from the Los Angeles Education Research Consortium Appendix E. Comments from TETF Constituencies and Members

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Appendix A. Quality Leadership and Teaching to Ensure a World Class Education for All

FLORES AGUILAR, GARCIA, VLADOVIC (Introduced on April 28, 2009; Board Vote on April 28, 2009) Whereas, The Board of Education is responsible for ensuring that children educated in the Los Angeles Unified School District graduate college prepared and career ready; Whereas, In order for the LAUSD to become a district where all students graduate from high school with a meaningful education, there must be quality teachers and principals in every pre‐kindergarten through 12th grade classroom and school, respectively; Whereas, Principals as collaborative leaders are essential to the success of their schools; additionally, they are the instructional leaders responsible for inspiring teachers, classified staff, students, parents, and the community; Whereas, Teachers are the drivers of high achievement and the providers of a quality education for all students; Whereas, The “Leader of Leaders Program” and “Teach LAUSD Campaign” resolutions – part of a reform package passed by the Board in July of 2007 – recognizes the importance of attracting, training, and retaining highly qualified principals and teachers; Whereas, It is not enough to attract and retain good teachers and leadership; the District must also ensure their continued professional growth and support to become the best they can be, thereby facilitating a richer educational environment for student success; Whereas, Professional development and growth is best measured through a process of goal‐setting, benchmarks, evaluation, and accountability; Whereas, The District currently employs an evaluation process for teachers and administrators that results in a general rating of “Meets Standard Performance” or “Below Standard Performance;” Whereas, This evaluation process is based on past performance without addressing future improvement methodologies and expectations for achievement; does not recognize exceptional teachers and leaders; and lacks a motivational framework to push oneself to higher levels of performance; Whereas, Principals and administrators do not all perform evaluations in a standardized manner and must carry out the evaluation process with limited resources and assistance; Whereas, A support mechanism can provide quality professional guidance, mentoring, and clearly defined step‐by‐step procedures, ensuring timely, accurate, and appropriate preparation and achievement of the evaluation of teachers and administrators; Whereas, A properly performed evaluation involves the planning, participation, and commitment of the principal and teacher, as well as the school community; ensuring that the process is standardized, objective, impartial, and meaningful;

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Whereas, A robust evaluation process can help ensure that every student has an outstanding teacher and administrator working to meet their needs; Whereas, An effective evaluation process can strengthen and enhance the teacher‐principal relationship, union affiliation, and teacher‐student involvement, by establishing measurable learning outcomes that can have a positive impact on overall student achievement and lead to a higher level of student learning; Whereas, Federal Stimulus Funds are being awarded in “exchange for a commitment to advance essential education reforms to benefit students,” including increased teacher effectiveness; Whereas, A second round of Stimulus funding is contingent upon showing progress in implementing reform, and will require states to provide data on their teacher evaluation systems, among other measures; Whereas, In announcing the release of Stimulus Funds, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated, “The first step toward real and lasting reform that will ensure our students’ competitiveness begins with absolute transparency and accountability in how we invest our dollars, educate our children, evaluate our teachers, and measure our success;” Whereas, On April 14, 2009, Board Member Marlene Canter introduced a motion entitled “Ensuring and Supporting Teacher Quality,” with the intent to improve our internal promotion process and provide additional professional development while improving the performance and accountability of our educators; Whereas, On April 14, 2009, Board Members Marlene Canter and Tamar Galatzan introduced a motion entitled “Teacher Quality: A Call to Legislators,” with the intent to ask our legislators for common sense improvements to what is currently a lengthy, expensive, and ineffective dismissal process, one where students and families do not have a voice; and Whereas, These two motions highlight the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach in ensuring quality teachers and leaders, themes incorporated within this motion, “Quality Leadership and Teaching to Ensure a World Class Education for All Students;” now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Board of Education directs the Superintendent to convene a task force comprised of appropriate District staff (such as Human Resources, Staff Relations, General Counsel, Government Affairs, etc.) labor partners, teachers, administrators, and parent representatives to work collaboratively over the next 180 days to:

Review and analyze research on Performance Evaluation, and identify best practices to

incorporate into the District’s evaluation framework for administrators, teachers, and support personnel (including consideration of components for future improvement methodologies and achievement expectations, as well as a multi‐tiered framework); Develop recommendations for strengthening and enhancing the process by which

administrators, teachers, and support personnel are evaluated, while ensuring that the process is standardized, objective, impartial, and meaningful;

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Develop recommendations for strengthening and enhancing support mechanisms to provide quality professional guidance, mentoring, and clearly defined step‐by‐step procedures for evaluation; Develop recommendations for ensuring the granting of tenure is a deliberate and merited

process, based on performance evaluations; Develop recommendations and a legislative plan for areas that require changes to California

law (such as bumping, seniority, dismissal, etc.); Develop recommendations and criteria for incentive pay;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent report to the Board on a monthly basis to share progress made by the task force in accomplishing this scope of work; Resolved further, That if sufficient progress is not made by the task force in a timely manner, and/or if the work of the task force stalls due to an unwillingness to collaborate or move the work forward, the Superintendent is directed to assume the responsibilities of the task force to ensure the work is completed; and be it finally Resolved, That the Superintendent report to the Board in 180 days with a strategic plan for maximizing principal and teacher quality, as well as any resources required for implementation (including identification of potential sources of funding). AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT Ms. Canter X Ms. Korenstein X Ms. LaMotte X Dr. Vladovic X Ms. Galatzan X Ms. Flores Aguilar X Ms. Garcia X TOTAL 4 3

ACTION: ADOPTED AS AMENDED

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Appendix B. Sub‐Committee Members Evaluation Sub‐committee

Facilitator: John Bowes Assistant Chief Human Resources Officer, Office of Staff Relations

• Ruth Bautista, District English Learner Advisory Committee • Pamela Burga, Director of Policy, Office of School Board Member Tamar Galatzan • David Carr, Green Dot Public Schools • Kate Farrar, Director of Alumni Affairs, Teach For America • Mike Gibson, United Teachers Los Angeles • Susan Hamilburg, Teacher, Canyon Charter • Laura Hernandez‐Flores, MLA Partner Schools • Mary Johnson, Parent Collaborative • Julie Kane, UCLA IMPACT: Urban Teacher Residency • Eric Lee , President/Chairman, Southern Christian Leadership Conference ‐ LA • Mike McGalliard, President & CEO, MLA Partner Schools • Shane McLoud, Public Participant • Maria Morter, District Advisory Council • Judith Perez, President, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (AALA) • Ray Reisler, Executive Director, S. Mark Taper Foundation • Virginia Rios, Parent, Parent Collaborative • Bill Ring, Parent Collaborative • James Rosser, President, California State University ‐ Los Angeles • Ron Solorzano, Chair, Education Department, Occidental College • Martha Suarez, District English Learner Advisory Committee • Dan Weisberg, Vice President, The New Teacher Project • Jess Womack, National Health Foundation

Differentiated Compensation Sub‐Committee

Facilitator: Vivian Ekchian, Chief Human Resources Officer

• Victoria Marino, Specialist, Human Resources, LAUSD • Dr. Joan Marks, Teacher, Pio Pico Elementary School, LAUSD • Dr. Tom Stekol, Office of Staff Relations, LAUSD • Daniel Barnhart, Officer, United Teachers Los Angeles • Maria Torres‐Flores, Principal, Bravo Medical Magnet High School • Amy Orringer, Director of Strategic Initiatives, MLA Partner Schools

Tenure Sub‐committee

Facilitator: Ira Berman, Director, Employee Relations, LAUSD

• Mark Kleger‐Heine, COO, Partnership for LA Schools • Bruce Williams, United Teachers Los Angeles • Jordan Henry, Teacher/UTLA Chapter Chair, Santee Education Complex

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

• Antonio Jose Camacho, Principal, 135th St. Elementary School Support Mechanisms

Facilitator: Marsha Oh‐Bilodeau, Coordinator‐Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program

• Regina Bryant, National Board Certified Teacher‐Palms Elementary School, LAUSD • Ed Burke, Lead Consulting Teacher‐Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program, LAUSD • Elizabeth Conroy, Program Coordinator‐Los Angeles Area Chamber Of Commerce‐Unite‐LA • Felicia Cuesta, Managing Director of Program, Teach for America • Nancy Franklin, Director, Least Restrictive Environment Programs, LAUSD • Elaine Kinoshita, Director of School Services, Elementary‐Local District 4 • George Lunetta, Consulting Teacher – PAR Program • Byron Maltez, Interim Local District 4 Superintendent, LAUSD • Sherry Mcgillivray, Teacher‐Secondary CDS, LAUSD • Aleeta Powers, BTSA Coordinator‐Teacher Development and Support • Gina Smith‐Deville, Administrator‐Teacher and Administrator Development Branch & Leadership

Academy • Gregg Solkovits‐Secondary Vice‐President‐United Teachers Los Angeles • Mary Stepter, National Board Certified Teacher‐Monroe High School • Peggy Taylor‐Presley, Director‐Teacher Development and Support • Shelly Tochluk, Chair, Education Department‐Mount St. Mary’s College • Douglas Waybright, Director of School Services, Secondary‐Local District 3 • Jeraldine Wilson, Consulting Teacher‐PAR Program

Legislative Sub Committee

Facilitators: Justo Avila, Human Resources, and Lydia Ramos, Communications

• Juanita Arevalo, Parent • Marlene Canter, Former LAUSD Board President • Iris Delgado, Student • Ruby Delgado, Student • A.J. Duffy, UTLA President • Reverend Eric Lee, President & Chairman, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater

Los Angeles • Paul Miller, Teach for America • Bill Ring, Parent Collaborative • Elizabeth Saldivar, Parent

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Appendix C. Works Cited and Works Reviewed A User's Guide to Peer Assistance and Review (The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers). Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2009. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/). Arizona & tenure. (See http://www.nctq.org/docs/Teachers_fear_new_state_laws_weaken_job_securit...). Baratz‐Snoweden, Joan. Fixing Tenure: A proposal for assuring teacher effectiveness and due process. Center for American Progress, June 2009. (See http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/teacher_tenure.html). Bernstein, Marc F. Delaying teacher tenure for education’s good. School Administrator, May 1, 2006. (See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=146072887). Best Practices in Teacher Effectiveness. National Council on Teacher Quality, November 2009. (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united‐states/Documents/best‐practices‐te...). Broward Teachers Union (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.). (See http://www.aft.org/innovate/grantees.htm). California Ballot Proposition 74, 2005. (See http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTeacherTenure.html). California Standards for the Teaching Profession, 1998. (See http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator‐ prep/standards/CSTP‐2009.pdf). Chicago Public Schools. (See http://www.thefundchicago.org/index.php?tray=content&tid=0911ktop1&cid=0...). Cincinnati Public Schools – Teacher Evaluation. (See http://www.cps‐ k12.org/employment/tchreval/tchreval.htm). Clotfelter, Charles T., Ladd, Helen F., and Jacob L. Vigdor. Teaching Credentials and Student Achievement: Longitudinal Analysis with Fixed Effects. Economics of Education Review, December 2007. (See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB9‐4PXM6FT‐ 2&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor =&view=c&_searchStrId=1252638285&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersi on=0&_userid=10&md5=ba78dae33eb9abfffaec42820fc9ee7d for abstract). College Ready Promise – Coalition of five Los Angeles Charter Management Organizations working together on teacher effectiveness. (See http://www.thecollegereadypromise.org/). Danielson, Charlotte. Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2007 Danielson, Charlotte. Teacher Leadership that Strengthens Professional Practice. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Darling‐Hammond, Linda, Holtzman, Deborah J., Gatlin, Su Jin, and Julian Vasquez Heilig. Does Teacher Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach for America, and Teacher Effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, October 2005. (See http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/147/273). Decker, Paul T., Mayer, Daniel P. and Steven Glazerman. The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation. Mathematica, 2004. (See http://www.thefundchicago.org/index.php?tray=content&tid=top49&cid=119). District of Columbia Public Schools – IMPACT: The DCPS Effectiveness Assessment System for School‐ Based Personnel. (See http://dcps.dc.gov/DCPS/In+the+Classroom/Ensuring+Teacher+Success/IMPACT...). Donaldson, Morgaen. So Long Lake Wobegon: Using Teacher Evaluation to Raise Quality. Center for American Progress, June 2009. (See http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/teacher_evaluation.html). Effective Evaluation. Principal Leadership, March 2009. (Free version not available). Sawchuk, Stephen. New Teacher‐Evaluation Systems Face Obstacles. EdWeek, December 11, 2009. (See http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/article...). Goldhaber, Dan D., Brewer, Dominic J., and Deborah J. Anderson. A Three‐Way Error Components Analysis of Educational Productivity. Education Economics, 1999. (See http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&E RICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ597060&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ597060). Goldhaber, Dan. Teacher Pay Reforms: The Political Implications of Recent Research. The Center for American Progress, May 2009. (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/teacher_pay_report.pdf). Gordon, Robert, Kane, Thomas J. and Douglas O. Staiger. Identifying Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job. The Brookings Institution, April 2006. (See http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1_pb.pdf). Hanushek, Eric A. The Single Salary Schedule and Other Issues of Teacher Pay. The Hoover Institution at Stanford University, October 2006. (http://edpro.stanford.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/files/uploads/Teacher_incentives_salaries.pdf). Huang, Francis L. and Tonya R. Moon. Is Experience the Best Teacher: A Multi‐Level Analysis of Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement in Low Performing Schools. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, August 2009. (See http://www.springerlink.com/content/uq2u701588j46364/). Jerald, Craig. Aligned by Design: How Teacher Compensation Reform Can Support and Reinforce Other Educational Reforms. Center for American Programs, July 2009. (See www.americanprogress.org). Kalejs Qazilbash, Emily et al. Peer Assistance and Review: A Cross‐Site Study of Labor‐Management Collaboration Required for Program Success. (The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers). Harvard Graduate School of Education, April 2009. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/).

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

King Jr., Neil and John Hechinger. D.C. Schools Chief Targets Tenure. Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2009. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125860189986054965.html). Koppich, Julia E. and Jessica Rigby. Alternative Teacher Compensation: A Primer. PACE, 2009. (See http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/WP.09‐2.pdf and see also http://pace.berkeley.edu/teacherpay/). Koppich, Julie E. Minneapolis: A Different Take on Tenure. Strategic Management of Human Capital, October 2009. (See www.smhc‐cpre.org/download/84/). Medina, Jennifer. Mayor Says Student Scores Will Factor into Teacher Tenure. New York Times, November 25, 2009. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/education/26teachers.html?_r=2&pagewan...). Miller, Raegen and Robin Chait. Teacher Turnover, Tenure Policies, and the Distribution of Teacher Quality: Can High‐Poverty Schools Catch a Break? Center for American Progress, Deccember 2008. (See http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/12/pdf/teacher_attrition.pdf). Minneapolis Public Schools – The System for Teacher and Student Advancement. (See http://tap.mpls.k12.mn.us/). Moore Johnson, Susan. Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Harvard Graduate School of Education. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/). National Staff Development Council Standards, 2001. (See http://www.nsdc.org/standards/). New York State United Teachers & Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Health Professionals – collaborating on a multi‐district approach to more rigorous and meaningful teacher evaluation. (See http://www.aft.org/about/innovate/). Papay, John P. et al. Beyond Dollars and Cents: The Costs and Benefits of Teacher Peer Assistance and Review. American Educational Research Association, April 2009. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/new_papers/JPP_AERA_2009.pdf). PAR in Montgomery County: A Systems Approach. (The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers). Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2009. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/practice/montgomery.html). PAR in Toledo: Continuity through Change. (The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers). Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2009. (See http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/practice/toledo.html). Peer Assistance and Review: Working Models Across the Country Research. California State University Institute for Education Reform, 2000. (See http://www.calstate.edu/ier/reports/PARReport.pdf). Prince George’s County (Maryland). (See http://www1.pgcps.org/SFSF/index.aspx?id=112214). Principles for Professional Development: AFT’s Guidelines for Creating Professional Development Programs that Make a Difference. American Federation of Teachers, 2002. (See http://archive.aft.org/pubs‐reports/downloads/teachers/PRINCIPLES.pdf).

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Quality of Teaching and Learning Rubric. Los Angeles Unified School District, 2008. (See http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/FLDR_PLCY_RES_DEV/ PAR_DIVISION_MAIN/RESEARCH_UNIT/RUBRIC_DEC%202008.PDF). Rhode Island. (See http://www.nctq.org/docs/School_superintendents_told_to_abolish_teacher_...). Rivkin, Steven G., Hanushek, Eric A., and John F. Kain. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Impact. Econometria, 2005. (See http://www.nber.org/papers/w6691). Sanders, William L. and Sandra P. Horn. Research Findings from the Tennessee Value‐Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1998. (See http://www.sas.com/govedu/edu/ed_eval.pdf). Teach for America Program Overview. (See www.teachforamerica.com). Teacher Hiring, Transfer, & Evaluation in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The New Teacher Project, September 2009. (See http://www.tntp.org/files/TNTP_LAUSD_Report_Nov09.pdf). The Widget Effect. The New Teacher Project, 2008. (See http://widgeteffect.org/). Toch, Thomas. Test Results and Drive‐By Evaluations. EdWeek, March 5, 2008. (See http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/05/26toch_e p.h27.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/03/05/26toch_ep.h27.html&levelId =2100). Using Open Innovation to Reform Teacher Evaluation. The Hope Street Group, 2009. (See http://www.hopestreetgroup.org/content/index.php/publications/235‐policy‐20‐using‐open‐ innovation‐to‐improve‐teacher‐evaluation‐systems.html). Where We Stand: Teacher Quality. American Federation of Teachers, 2003. (See http://archive.aft.org/pubs‐reports/downloads/teachers/TQres.pdf).

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Appendix D. Letter from the Los Angeles Education Research Consortium

April 1, 2010

To Board Members and Superintendent Cortines, We write on behalf of the Los Angeles Educational Research Consortium to offer our encouragement of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force's (TETF) efforts to ensure a "highly effective teacher in every classroom and a highly effective leader for every school," and to recommend broad implementation guidelines that we believe will greatly increase the likelihood that the TETF’s reforms will have a positive impact on LAUSD students’ educational outcomes. The Los Angeles Educational Research Consortium (“the Consortium”) is a new civic institution that seeks to leverage the expertise of education researchers throughout the Los Angeles area to provide systematic evidence that will inform district decision making and teachers' and administrators' work. The Consortium’s purpose is to enhance the coherence and rigor of educational research in Los Angeles and translate results into usable knowledge that can help inform district policy and practice. The Consortium supports the TEFT’s focus on teacher effectiveness. It is important to note, however, that there are many ways both to conceptualize and measure "teacher effectiveness." We do know from a number of studies that students can learn considerably more from some teachers than from others.i Multiple studies have also shown that teacher quality tends to be unequally distributed across schools, with the most disadvantaged students often learning from the least qualified teachers.ii The Consortium also supports the TEFT’s comprehensive approach to improving teacher effectiveness in the district. Like the majority of districts, LAUSD currently has evaluation, support, compensation, and tenure processes that are not as effective as they could be. For example, LAUSD’s current teacher evaluation system neither differentiates among teachers of varying levels of "effectiveness" nor does it provide information to teachers to help them improve their practice.iii In addition, the district's teacher support mechanisms are not closely tied to teachers' professional growth needs, even though research indicates that effective professional development should be tightly linked to teachers' specific instructional goals and curricula.iv Although we know far too little about what teacher training is most effective, evidence points toward the conclusion that both pre‐service and in‐service teacher training nationwide is inconsistent and in many cases ineffective.v At the same time, research suggests that teacher training that is content‐focused, aligned with curriculum, tightly linked to teachers' specific instructional goals and curricula, and sustained for a significant period of time can have an important impact on instructional effectiveness.vi Moreover, LAUSD‘s compensation system currently rewards teachers almost exclusively based on education and experience, even though most studies indicate that these kinds of characteristics only account for about ten percent of the variability in teachers’ effectiveness.vii

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

The proposals put forth by the TETF recognize these problems, among many others. By establishing the TETF and choosing to implement reforms intended to increase teacher effectiveness, LAUSD has established itself as a pioneer in district reform efforts to improve student learning. Now that LAUSD has taken these important first steps, it is critical that the district move into the implementation stage with the utmost care. LAUSD has the potential to become a national model for how to reform human capital systems. It is thus incumbent upon the district to develop and evaluate its teacher effectiveness reforms deliberately and systematically, not only to maximize benefits for the students in our district but also to provide an opportunity for other districts nationwide to learn from the LAUSD reforms so that their students, too, can benefit. We want to emphasize that although researchers know a good deal about existing practices that do not work particularly well to improve teacher effectiveness or student outcomes, we know far less about the best ways that districts can recruit, evaluate, support, distribute, retain, and compensate good teachers. Most district reform efforts underway across the nation have been implemented in ways that do not readily allow for strong evaluations of the success of these reforms in improving teacher effectiveness or student outcomes. The Consortium urges LAUSD to buck that trend. We encourage LAUSD to design and implement its teacher effectiveness reforms in ways that will allow it and the broader education community to learn from these reforms, and the Consortium is prepared to assist the TETF to that end. Specifically, we encourage the district to consider the following broad principles in developing and implementing its teacher effectiveness reforms:

1. Take time to plan. Although we all recognize the need for change, the lack of strong research evidence about how best to attract strong teachers, measure teacher effectiveness, evaluate teachers, develop better teachers, reward good teaching, and retain the most effective teachers signals a need for deliberate planning to design and implement systems that have the best chance of improving student outcomes in the long run.

2. Try out different measures of teacher effectiveness before settling on the "right" set of measures. Although the TETF calls out the need to work with researchers to choose the "right" set of measures to determine employee effectiveness, it is important to remember that agreement is less than universal about the "right" measures to use. We believe LAUSD would be wise to invest the necessary time to pilot a range of potentially useful measures of teacher effectiveness and compare those measures with one another to get a clear sense of their usefulness for teacher development, support, and evaluation.

3. Include relevant stakeholders in the planning process. The TETF has included

multiple stakeholders' perspectives in the initial proposal. It is imperative that

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

stakeholders throughout the district, and in particular, teachers and principals, continue to provide input into the reform plan. This will enrich and improve the design of the system by ensuring that on‐the‐ground knowledge is incorporated into eventual policy decisions, and it will ease implementation of the reforms.

4. Take advantage of the district’s size and diversity to implement "pilot" reforms throughout LAUSD. It is important that LAUSD plans to test and refine a range of reforms in different sets of schools within LAUSD, so that the district can compare the different systems against one another to determine which produce the best results in terms of teacher development and student growth. The TETF report already raises the possibility of piloting compensation reforms, and we encourage the LAUSD to use the piloting approach more broadly. It is also important to remember to continue with “business as usual” in some schools. “Business as usual” schools that maintain the current systems of evaluation, compensation, and support serve as “control” schools, enabling the district to understand the costs and benefits of its reforms relative to the status quo. These "pilot" implementation and evaluation processes will allow the district to learn from its efforts and will lessen any unforeseen negative consequences of the reforms.

5. Plan to take the "best" system to scale. After a careful design and piloting process,

the district can implement the structures that produce the best results throughout the district. By scaling up slowly, LAUSD will maximize the positive impacts on student outcomes while minimizing any negative unintended consequences.

6. Ensure that the necessary conditions are in place to allow the reforms to succeed. One of the central goals of the TETF's proposals is to provide teachers with meaningful feedback and opportunities for professional growth. In order for this to occur, it is critical that the district maintains and builds the necessary capacity to provide such support to teachers, including sufficient staff and training.

7. Document the reform process and its short and longterm outcomes. LAUSD is

uniquely positioned to develop new knowledge about the best ways that districts can increase teacher effectiveness and, as a result, improve student outcomes. In order to learn as much as possible from these reforms and to inform the national debate, it will be important to plan to document the reform process carefully from the outset and ensure that an adequate data infrastructure is in place to track teacher and student progress.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Thank you for your continued effort to improve teaching and learning in LAUSD. We look forward to assisting you as you pursue these important reforms. Sincerely, Researchers Affiliated with the Los Angeles Educational Research Consortium Eva Baker Distinguished Professor & Director CRESST University of California, Los Angeles Carol A. Bartell Dean and Professor School of Education California Lutheran University Jeanmarie Hamilton Boone Assistant Professor of Education Graduate School of Education & Psychology Pepperdine University Dominic J. Brewer Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs Clifford H. and Betty C. Allen Professor in Urban Leadership Professor of Education, Economics & Policy Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Andrew Cazares Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Christina A. Christie Associate Professor Social Research Methods Division Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Carl A. Cohn Clinical Professor of Urban School Leadership Claremont Graduate University Gary Colombo Vice Chancellor for Institutional Effectiveness Los Angeles Community College District

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Aimée Dorr Dean Graduate School of Education & Information studies University of California, Los Angeles Karen Symms Gallagher Emery Stoops & Joyce King Stoops Dean Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Joan Herman Director CRESST University of California, Los Angeles Charles Taylor Kerchner Research Professor School of Educational Studies Claremont Graduate University Magnhild Lien Director School Research Collaborative California State University, Northridge José Felipe Martínez Assistant Professor Social Research Methodology Graduate School of Education University of California, Los Angeles William G. Ouchi Sanford and Betty Sigoloff Distinguished Professor in Corporate Renewal Human Resources/Organizational Behavior Area Chair Anderson School of Management University of California, Los Angeles Meredith Phillips Associate Professor of Public Policy & Sociology School of Public Affairs University of California, Los Angeles Jody Z. Priselac Executive Director, Center X Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

University of California, Los Angeles Karen H. Quartz Director of Research, Center X Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Sarah Reber Assistant Professor of Public Policy School of Public Affairs University of California, Los Angeles Michelle Riconscente Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology Rossier School of Education University of Southern California David Silver Senior Researcher CRESST University of California, Los Angeles Ronald W. Solórzano Professor & Chair Department of Education Occidental College Michael Spagna Professor and Dean Michael D. Eisner College of Education California State University, Northridge Jim Stigler Professor Department of Psychology University of California, Los Angeles Katharine Strunk Assistant Professor of Education & Policy Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Margaret Weber Dean Graduate School of Education & Psychology Pepperdine University

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Priscilla Wohlstetter Diane and MacDonald Becket Professor of Educational Policy Director, Center on Educational Governance Rossier School of Education University of Southern California Kyo Yamashiro Independent Consultant _________________________________ i See, for examples: Goldhaber, D., Brewer, D . & Anderson, D. (1999). A Three‐Way Error Components Analysis of Educational Productivity. Educational Economics; Rockoff, J. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data, American Economic Review, 94: 247‐52; Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E. & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement. Econometrica 73(2): 417458. ii See, for examples: Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1): 37‐62; Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why Public Schools Lose Teachers. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(2): 326‐354; Ingersoll, R.M. (2004) Why do HighPoverty Schools Have Difficulty Staffing Their Classrooms with Qualified Teachers?, Center for American Progress and Institute for America's Future; Birman, B.F. et al. (2007) State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act V.II – Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Interim Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service; and Jacob, B.A. (2007). The Challenges of Staffing Urban Schools with Effective Teachers. The Future of Children, 17(1): 129153. iii Donaldson, M. (2009). So Long Lake Wobegon: Using Teacher Evaluation to Raise Quality. Center for American Progress; The New Teacher Project (2009). Teacher Hiring, Transfer, & Evaluation in Los Angeles Unified School District. iv Hill, H. (2007). Learning in the Teaching Workforce. Future of Children 17(1): 111‐128. v See, for example: Jacob, B. & Lefgren, L. (2004). The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: Quasi‐Experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago. Journal of Human Resources, 39 (1). vi Harris, D. & Sass, T. (2007). Teacher Training, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement. Working Paper No. 3. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research; Hill, H. (2007). Learning in the Teaching Workforce. Future of Children 17(1): 111‐128; Yoon, et al. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007‐No. 033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest; Angrist, J. & Lavy, V. (2001). Does teacher Training Affect Pupil Learning? Evidence from Matched Comparisons in Jerusalem Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2): 343‐369. Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and Substance in Inservice Teacher Education. Research Monograph No. 13. National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin‐Madison. vii See, for examples: Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J. F., O'Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S.G. (2005). The Market for Teacher Quality. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 11154; Aaronson, A., Barrow, L. & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1) ; Koedel, C. & Betts, J. (2007). ReExamining the Role of Teacher Quality in the Educational Production Function. Working Paper 0708, University of Missouri.

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force – Final Report April 2010

Appendix E. Comments from TETF Constituencies and Members Constituency groups (e.g., collective bargaining units) that participated in the TETF and individual members of the TETF were invited to submit comment statements regarding the final TETF recommendations. These comments can be found in alphabetical order in the pages that follow. (Note, also, that we have collected and will continue to collect comments from the public on the TETF website as part of our ongoing efforts to engage all stakeholders in this process).

Teacher and Administrator Evaluation By Dr. Judith Perez, AALA President

March 30, 2010 One area in which the Evaluation Sub-Committee has been unable to reach consensus during our five months of work is who should be responsible for the evaluation of teachers and principals. While some committee members believe evaluation should be shared among a variety of school constituencies, AALA’s view is that a single individual must be held accountable for the evaluation of each of these District employees. In the case of teachers, that individual is the principal; in the case of principals, that individual is the local district superintendent. Principals are responsible for the supervision of instruction, the framework for the work of the school. Teacher evaluation is one component of supervision of instruction, which also includes student learning, professional development and school culture. Local district superintendents are responsible for the quality of the schools under their purview. Local district superintendents are in a line reporting relationship with principals; principals are in a line relationship with teachers. What is the significance of the line relationship? Evaluation is a contractual issue. Article VII of the AALA/LAUSD Contract (p. 14) addresses performance evaluation and professional development, as follows: The purposes of these procedures are to improve performance through the evaluation process, promote accountability, and encourage professional growth in order to improve the quality of educational services provided by the employee. They are also meant to provide reasonable assistance to employees whose performance is less than satisfactory. Only those with line authority have the ability to direct and supervise improvements in professional performance, provide consistent assistance and guidance, ensure directives are carried out and, where appropriate, implement discipline. Evaluation is a serious matter for everyone involved, requiring objectivity, sensitivity and fairness. The education of students is at stake, as is the quality of the school. The careers of employees and their livelihoods are linked to an effective evaluation, lending further weight to the importance of accountability in evaluation. At the same time, AALA believes that teachers, parents and students play an important role in providing feedback to teachers and administrators regarding their performance. For example, teams of teachers working collaboratively may assess the success of a project they are working on together. They may provide support to colleagues, help peers design team or individual growth plans, design and carry out professional development for colleagues and evaluate its effectiveness.

Teachers may assess the effectiveness of their principals’ communication, collaboration and distribution of resources. Parents may offer feedback to their children’s teachers and school administrators on a variety of topics. Students may give teachers and administrators feedback about their learning experiences and school environment. Feedback can be provided in numerous ways, such as through surveys, open-ended questions and facilitated conversations. To be clear, AALA strongly opposes assigning such feedback an arbitrary percentage value of individual employees’ performance evaluations. Doing so would dilute accountability and would conflict with the AALA contract. Nevertheless, we do believe that the voices of teachers, parents and students are invaluable for the improvement of schools. Collaboration among stakeholders is essential. We look forward to the implementation phase of the Teacher Effectiveness Taskforce and further discussions about the evaluation process in the coming months.

To: LAUSD Board of Education

From: Susan Hamilburg, TETF member, teacher

Date: March 26, 2010

As a teacher at Canyon Charter Elementary School, one of the first affiliated charter schools in California, and a member of the Task Force, I strongly endorse this report.

Teachers have many jobs, but first and foremost, we need to improve student achievement and to provide students with tools to succeed in school and in life. I served on the Evaluation sub‐committee and I know how hard we tried to keep these goals in mind as we wrote these recommendations. There are many remaining questions about their implementation, but I am confident that they will be thoroughly and fairly addressed, and I look forward to being part of this on‐going process.

Good teaching is easy to recognize, but hard to quantify. It is hard, but not impossible. If our goal is to provide the best possible teacher for every student, it is vital that we figure out how to do this. There are many precedents in other school districts and other states that we can consider as models and adapt for own needs and students.

I do have a few areas of particular concern.

• While I agree with adopting the 360 degree evaluation model of teachers and principals, we have to be certain that these stakeholders are well trained, the evaluation tools, e.g. surveys, etc., are fair and equitable, and that we carefully consider how much weight to assign each group’s input.

• The appropriate use of CST scores to evaluate teachers is one area that will be challenging as we move towards implementation. Throughout the process of writing the recommendations, the entire Task Force and the Evaluation sub‐committee were absolutely unequivocal in their resolve that, if these scores are to be used, they would be only one of the multiple measures considered as student outcomes.

• As we re‐vamp teacher and principal evaluations, we must strive to streamline and simplify this process as much as possible. We don’t want to create a nightmare of paperwork and bureaucracy.

In conclusion, I have to praise Ted Mitchell and the LAUSD staffers, Drew Furedi and Noah Bookman, for always keeping us on track and inspired.

This report is just the beginning of a difficult, but essential process. It is, however, a very good start.

Comments on Draft Recommendations of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force March 25, 2010 Bill Ring, TransParent® Note: These are my personal comments. Although I was invited to the Task Force as a member of the LAUSD Parent Collaborative, I am not speaking here on behalf of the Collaborative but rather as a long-time parent advocate and voice for the participation of parents as partners in planning, policy and practice in public education. I have deeply appreciated the opportunity to participate on the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force (TETF) and to share in discussions in the legislative and evaluation sub- committees. Most of my time and energy was invested in the legislative committee although I held (and continue to hold) significant interest in the matter of professional evaluations. I am generally in support of the recommendations but would like to be explicit in commenting upon the following: The discussion regarding a protocol and benchmarks for the evaluation of administrators was generated rather late in the process and deserves more thoughtful discussion and examination of research. In addition to any effort to develop tools and systems to assist in the evaluation of teachers and leaders, I would like to see an effort to professionalize the process of evaluating schools including an innovative approach to inspecting and reporting on schools (think the old program quality review [EPQR] process but cross it with Stephen Blake’s notion of a school inspectorate team, and include parents in the process). This idea has also been reviewed by the U.S. Dept. of Education and has been considered in an examination of general and technical assessment tools to be used by those states which are successful in qualifying for Race To The Top. As to teacher tenure, I am less certain about a 4 year window to tenure than I am about the need for a process to better evaluate when a teacher is qualified to be considered for tenure. One recommendation that I made to the legislative subcommittee at the outset of this task force was to examine the requirement in the Educational Employment Relations Act in California. This deals with the “sunshining” of collective bargaining proposals once they have been made public at school board meetings. In my opinion, LAUSD in no way complies with the spirit of this legislation. My hope is to have public conversations about what is best for students (before contracts are approved and promises are made) to avoid the damage that is currently being done to relationships within our school communities. As a general comment, I would like to close with the suggestion that if we are serious about giving schools increasing autonomy we must address the need to build capacity at out schools so they learn how to improve. Parents have a role in meeting this challenge and I would like to see support for their role in evaluating teacher & school performance.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Founder Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles Rev. Eric P. Lee President / CEO CA State President SCLC Board of Directors Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Chairman Danny Bakewell, Jr. Rev. Louis Chase Dr. Janet Clark Mike Garcia Alice Goff Rabbi Steven Jacobs Lillian Mobley Dr. Roy Petitt Rev. William B. Smart Brenda Sutton-Wills Cesar Trelles Rev. Ron Wright 4182 S. Western Avenue Los Angeles, California 90062 Tel: 323.903-5860 Fax: 323.903-5818 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sclclosangeles.org

Official Comment on the Final Report of the Los Angeles Unified School District Teacher Effectiveness Task Force

March 30, 2010

The dialogue regarding Teacher Effectiveness is encouraging in this environment of change, but more than change, we need to transform the entire system of education. Change is not explicit enough nor does it convey the deep rooted systemic transformation that needs to take place to ensure our children receive the quality of education that prepares them to be successful in this ever-competitive global society. Change could be nothing more than putting new wine in old wine skins, causing the old wine skins to eventually fall apart. We need a new wine skin, a new infrastructure, a new system to experience true transformation. The recent “Public Choice Option” and the “Race to the Top” legislation have forced the type of transformation that is long overdue. The Public Choice Option served notice upon educational institutions, including the teachers union, district administrators, teachers, parents and principals that “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” is insanity. Race to the Top legislation put teeth to accountability in a system that has avoided accountability for the failure of generation after generation of Black and Latino children. But legislation without the will of the people to carry out the transformative policies so desperately needed will doom us to Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity. There are three core transformative actions that must take place to cure the dismal quality of education: Teacher Effectiveness, Parent/Community Participation, and Culturally Relevant Curriculum. There are other actions that must also accompany the three listed but these are the cornerstones and foundation to creating an educational environment that is conducive to providing our children with a first class education. Teacher Effectiveness is the most critical component in providing a quality education. The question is how to measure teacher effectiveness? The current process for measuring teacher effectiveness requires observation by an administrator and then a rating of either meets standards or below standards. This does not allow for the identification of exceptional teachers, nor of the teachers in need of professional development to improve their techniques. Additionally, teachers are tenured after only two years (actually 18 months), which is not enough time to determine effectiveness in educating children. And, there is the question of whether we correlate the teacher’s performance to the student’s performance, which with the proper tools should be the best indicator of teacher effectiveness. A new wine skin needs to be created for evaluating teachers, increasing tenure to five years and correlating the teacher’s performance to consumer satisfaction (children’s improvement). The failure to effectively evaluate and rate a teacher’s performance, along with a teacher’s ability to transfer to another school after their second year creates a revolving door of inexperienced teachers in inner city schools. Inner city schools have become the “training ground” for teachers seeking to transfer to environments more conducive for providing a quality education. It is impossible to provide Black and Latino children with an equitable quality of education compared to their white counterparts.

Inner city schools have become a depository for a disproportionate amount of first and second year teachers, and also of teachers that have been evaluated as below standards in their performance. This situation, if allowed to continue, causes public education to move backwards to the Jim Crow era of segregated and unequal schools before the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. Parent/Community participation is critical in the success of transforming education. Parents must be partners in the process and engage the teachers, administrators, counselors, pastors, and community based organizations to provide feedback about how best to engage our children. This process should be integrated into the evaluation process for teachers. While its easy to say that parents need to be more involved in their child’s education, parents are working longer hours for less and are oftentimes not available to monitor their children during the critical afterschool hours that homework should be completed. The entire community must recognize our collective responsibility to emphasize the importance of education for our children and make ourselves available to provide input and feedback in the areas of homework completion, the need for tutoring, and most importantly guidance in meeting the needs of the children. Culturally Relevant Curriculum is closely tied to Teacher Effectiveness because it requires a teacher’s commitment to understanding the historical and cultural perspective of the child’s existence, and then the willingness and ability to deliver the curriculum with pedagogy that positively affirms the child’s existence within the curriculum. The inability to make the curriculum culturally relevant will perpetuate the decade’s long practice of presenting African Americans and other people of color as a “footnote” in American history. Consequently, teachers must be required to complete a certificated class (or series of classes) on Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Our children deserve better than putting new wine in old wine skins. In order to truly transform education and prepare the next generation, lets break the pattern of insanity and get new wine skins for the new wine of public school transformation by establishing a process of effectively evaluating, developing and nurturing our teachers. Very Best Regards

Rev. Eric P. Lee President/CEO SCLC of Greater Los Angeles CA State President

Comments from Dr. Ronald W. Solórzano, Professor and Chair of the Department of Education at Occidental College:

• Value-added models need to be examined relative to past gain score performance and the nature of the outcome variable (i.e., test). Specifically, some research suggests that past gain scores cannot establish a causal connection to the teacher without strict research designs (e.g., random assignments). This research suggests that the current gain score idea we're thinking about also has this potential problem. Therefore to link student performance to these scores may not be appropriate especially in high stakes decision making. Further, the issue of "vertical scaling" of the outcome variable (e.g., test) can be problematic. That is, for example, if we use the CST (or any other content standard test) we need to establish the congruence of each grade level's year's coverage and the difficulty relative to other years. I think LAUSD staff has raised the issue that the current CST does not have this vertical equivalence from 3rd grade to 4th grade for example.

• We need to determine how primary and secondary teachers who teach in areas not covered by the value-added outcome variable will be assessed.

• We need to evaluate how the use of test scores to determine teacher salaries will impact the

collaborative efforts at the school site (e.g., team teaching).

• We need to determine whether the outcome variable (i.e., test) was developed for the multiple purposes for which we plan on using them (e.g., teacher evaluation, student progress, program/school evaluation).

• We need to establish a technical advisory committee to address the issues of test use relative to

the value-added model.

Official Comment on the Final Report of the Los Angeles Unified School District

Teacher Effectiveness Task Force

March 25, 2010 The New Teacher Project was pleased to be part of the Teacher Effectiveness Task Force. We commend the task force for producing a set of common-sense recommendations that align with national best practices and, if implemented with integrity, will help ensure that every student in Los Angeles learns from great teachers. Nothing LAUSD can do for its students matters more. These recommendations are also long overdue. Many address outdated policies that have remained in place despite their obvious negative effects on teachers and students. For example, a study we released last year identified serious weaknesses in LAUSD’s teacher evaluation system, which rates just 1 percent of teachers “below standard” and fails to help hard-working teachers improve or recognize truly outstanding teachers. Over the last year, several media outlets have revealed a lack of rigor in LAUSD’s tenure process and the near impossibility of removing ineffective teachers from the classroom after they earn tenure. Quality-blind, seniority-based layoff rules remain in place even though they have cost schools across the city some of their best teachers over the last several years. All of these problems have been allowed to linger for far too long. The task force’s recommendations provide LAUSD with concrete, actionable solutions. A strengthened teacher evaluation system tied to student learning outcomes will give teachers honest feedback about their job performance that will help them grow as professionals. A differentiated compensation system and new career paths will help schools reward and retain their most talented teachers. A restructured tenure process will ensure that novice teachers receive the support they need to build successful careers, and that the privilege of tenure is awarded only to those who have truly earned it. The task force’s proposed legislative changes would streamline the dismissal process for teachers who consistently struggle to help students learn despite receiving support, and would allow schools to protect their best teachers when layoffs become necessary in tough economic times. TNTP appreciates the task force’s recognition that “no single aspect of these recommendations ‘works on its own.’” Piecemeal changes will not be enough; only a comprehensive reform plan and a sharp focus on effective teaching can put a great teacher in every LAUSD classroom. The task force has drawn a clear roadmap for comprehensive reform. Its recommendations are the result of six months of conversations that included teachers, principals, parents, and other key stakeholders from across the city. Now it is time to act. LAUSD needs to do the right thing for students by moving away from outdated policies that ignore the importance of teachers in helping students succeed. The district and the Board of Education must find the courage to faithfully implement the task force’s recommendations, even where there was some disagreement among task force members.

Given the state’s ongoing fiscal crisis, the district and the board should start by taking up the task force’s call to reform the state law that prohibits schools from factoring teacher effectiveness into layoff decisions. Board members, Superintendent Cortines and Mayor Villaraigosa should send an open letter to key lawmakers explaining how layoffs will drive away some of LAUSD’s best teachers—many of whom work in the city’s poorest neighborhoods—unless the law is changed immediately. This reform and the others the task force has recommended will not always come easily, but they will create a brighter future for generations of Los Angeles children.

To: Members of the Board of Education, Los Angeles Unified School District and Superintendent, Ramon Cortines From: Jess Womack, Member of Teacher Effectiveness Task Force Re: Public Comments Board Members and Mr. Superintendent, as a member of the Task Force and as a former member of the LAUSD Office of the General Counsel, I was pleased to be asked by the Superintendent to serve on this Task Force and also pleased to have worked with so many people who devoted many hard hours to develop what is admittedly only a starting point for further discussions about this very important issue. I only hope that when further discussions begin and the hard decisions have to be made that members exercise as much respect for differences of opinions and view points as was evidenced in drafting this document. I want to say to the Board and the Superintendent that I was genuinely pleased and surprised by the extent that people set aside their own agendas to focus on the issues at hand. Capacity to implement a fair evaluation system was an issue that infused much of the concern about our ability to create a fair evaluation system At core, much of the concern was about whether a fair system could be developed, and when people discussed capacity we often were addressing three separate, but interrelated questions. We used capacity to mean will sufficient training be offered to ensure that those who evaluate teachers and administration have sufficient understanding of the process to do so. We used capacity to address “span of control” and how many people will an evaluator be required to evaluate. The concern was to vastly improve the situation that now exists where one person sometimes evaluates up to 50 or 100 people. In my opinion, no one can effectively evaluate that many people, and I have serious doubts as to whether anyone can fairly evaluate that many. Finally, we used capacity to discuss frequency of evaluation, how often would evaluation occur. The general consensus was that once is too little and

four times per year too much. Frequency of evaluation is clearly something to be decided during the implementation stage of the process. To address the real question of the impact of capacity to implement on the fairness of the process means that at the end of the day, we will have to think and behave very differently, if we are to make and evaluation system work. To address concerns about the knowledge of the evaluators, it will mean that all who participate in the process, from the principal to the students, should the system mandate such participation, will have to be trained and trained well during the implementation process. And if BTS taught us anything, it is that testing in some type of a pilot model before full implementation is a good idea. Second, to address span of control, we will have to push the evaluation process further down the chain to lead teachers and department heads which will require not only a culture change but perhaps collective bargaining and legislative changes. Finally, if we are to move from a process that is viewed largely as a punitive measure to one that is developmental first and punitive as a last resort, we will need to decide how frequently and in what form evaluation takes place. So in closing, what we have is a first step that has many excellent departure points for further work and development. But whatever we implement in the future, we need to ensure that we have the capacity to implement it because without that, it will fail and it will not be fair.

homework6.pdf

ECO 158: Homework 6

December 3, 2017

Question 1: Teacher Evaluation in the Los Angeles Unified School District

The LAUSD is the second largest school district in the country (after NYC). Hence what happens there matters to a lot of students and has implications for the rest of the country. In April 2009 the LAUSD decided to create a task force to examine what LAUSD can do to improve the effectiveness of its teachers. The following questions are based on the report of that taskforce, which you can find here: http://relwest-archive.wested.org/system/event attachments/93/attachments/original/Teacher Effectiveness Task Force Report vfinal 0.pdf

(a) The Task Force characterizes “current district practice” with regards to teacher evaluation. Name two problems that they associate with current district practice with regards to teacher evaluation? [2 points]

(b) The Task Force characterizes “current district practice” with regards to salary. Name two problems that they associate with current district practice with regards to teacher salary? [2 points]

(c) The Task Force makes three recommendations regarding teacher effectiveness. In one paragraph, describe the difference between the current evaluation system and their recommended evaluation system.[2 points]

(d) In their recommendations, what does the Task Force say about the possibility of giving financial rewards to more effective teachers? Answer in one paragraph.[2 points]

Question 2: LA Times Releases Teacher VAM

In 2010 the LA Times acquired test scores of elementary school students in LAUSD. They did this via a public information request. They then commissioned a statistician to calculate value added measures (VAM) for all of the teachers in the LAUSD. They then wrote a series of stories about value-added and related issues about teacher evaluation and finally released the VAM on an online database that was searchable by school and teacher name. The website is here: http://projects.latimes.com/value- added/

(a) Search for the teacher “Anna Smith”. In which category does her Math and English effectiveness fall: “Most effective”, “More effective”, “Average effective”, “Less effective” or “Least effective”? [1 point]

(b) Click the “FAQ and About” link at the top-right of the page. Why did the Times not control for an individual student’s race or ethnicity when calculating VAM? [1 point]

(c) As I mentioned in class, the release of this information, and the branding of some teachers as less effectibe than average, might have led to at least one teacher committing suicide (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/education/10teacher.html? r=0). Why did the Times decide to publish individual teachers’ scores? [1 point]

Question 3: Teacher Evaluation in the LAUSD: Part II

The LAUSD decide to adopt some of the recommendations of the Task Force report. In September 2010 they declared that their reforms were based on the principle that “Our new evaluations must include multiple measures, including a balanced use of appropriate value-added data”. The multiple measures eventually proposed were similar to those recommended by the Task Force, including a “contribution to student learning” measure. In December 2010, “Zocalo Public Square” hosted a debate involving then Deputy Superintendent (later Superintendent) Dr John Deasy. Watch the first 10 minutes of this debate: http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/category/events/video-archive/?postId=16892

(a) Which jobs did Dr Deasy hold before this one? [1 point].

(b) Dr Deasy describes how LA Unified plans to construct value-added measures, including the factors that they intend to control for. Were any of the factors that they intend to control for also controlled for in the value-added measures published by the LA Times? [2 points]

http://relwest-archive.wested.org/system/event_attachments/93/attachments/original/Teacher_Effectiveness_Task_Force_Report__vfinal__0.pdf

Question 4: Tiebout Competition and Sorting

These questions relate to Andrew’s lecture on November 30th.

(a) Consider a school district that is underperforming in the sense that it is not producing levels of student achievement comparable to other districts with the same per-student spending and a student body of similar socio-economic background. (Perhaps the teachers are slacking off or the administrators are engaged in a scheme to embezzle tax revenue.) How can Tiebout sorting and Tiebout competition discourage, reduce, or eliminate such poor performance by public schools, or least help some of the negatively impacted students gain access to higher quality education? [1 point].

(b) Explain what economists mean when they say “public school quality is capitalized into housing prices.” (Only one sentence is necessary, but use two if you need to.) [1 point]

(c) Consider a household with the utility functionU = C.75Q.25 (The household derives utility from private consumption C and public school quality Q) and budget constraintY = C + τ. (Whatever income Y they have leftover after paying taxes τ they spend on all other goods C.) Suppose they are committed to living in their current school district and they are trying deciding which candidate to vote for in an upcoming school board election. They want to vote for their candidate who is proposing a level of taxes closest to their preferred value. There is a menu of possible taxes (τ) that will achieve a certain level of of school quality (Q), which is summarized by the function τ = Q3 (which can be rewritten Q = 3

√ τ) For example,

if the houshold wants schools of quality Q=2, they must payτ = 8. If they want schools of quality Q=3, then they must payτ = 27. Derive the household’s preferred tax level (τ*) as a function of their income (Y). [Hint 1: you don’t need to know Y to solve this problem. Just treat it as a consant.][Hint 2: Keep in mind that the price of school quality is not a constant coefficient.][4 points]