Neag Seed Report 1 1 14

1
!" $%&'(&)*+" +, )-. /*'+) 012'.1.")&)*+"

!" $!%%&'()'*(+, -.,(&/ "!0 12*'3(!0
!"#$%#&'() #)+ ,-"-$(./-)&

SubmlLLed by
uConn CenLer for LducaLlon ollcy Analysls
neag School of LducaLlon

Morgaen L. uonaldson
Casey u. Cobb
klmberly LeChasseur
8achael Cabrlel
8lchard Conzales
Sarah Woulfln
Allza Makuch

!anuary 1, 2014
2

keport on the ||ot Imp|ementat|on of
Connect|cut's System for Lducator Lva|uat|on and Deve|opment

Lxecut|ve Summary

lotpose
ln !une 2012, Lhe ConnecLlcuL Ceneral Assembly passed leglslaLlon mandaLlng LhaL LhaL
SLaLe 8oard of LducaLlon, ln consulLaLlon wlLh Lhe erformance LvaluaLlon Advlsory
Councll, develop guldellnes for a model program Lo evaluaLe and supporL publlc school
Leachers and admlnlsLraLors. 1hls leglslaLlon also dlrecLed Lhe unlverslLy of
ConnecLlcuL's neag School of LducaLlon Lo sLudy Lhe plloL lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe sLaLe
model and reporL flndlngs Lo Lhe SLaLe 8oard of LducaLlon and LducaLlon CommlLLee Lo
lnform modlflcaLlons Lo Lhe model. ueveloped by Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon,
Lhe sLaLe model was enLlLled Lhe SysLem for LducaLor LvaluaLlon and uevelopmenL
(SLLu), and was lmplemenLed ln 10 plloL school dlsLrlcLs/consorLla, encompasslng 14
dlsLrlcLs ln LoLal. 1he purpose of our sLudy was Lo examlne Lhe lmplemenLaLlon and
shorL-Lerm ouLcomes of ConnecLlcuL's new educaLor evaluaLlon model ln Lhese dlsLrlcLs.
Cur broader alm was Lo provlde feedback on SLLu's plloL lmplemenLaLlon so LhaL Lhe
model could be lmproved and beLLer supporL lmprovemenLs Lo Leachers' pracLlce and
sLudenLs' learnlng.
8ased on daLa collecLed ln all 14 plloL dlsLrlcLs, we flnd LhaL SLLu was lmplemenLed ln
Lhe plloL slLes wlLh a relaLlvely hlgh degree of fldellLy Lo Lhe model. Moreover, mosL
educaLors ln Lhe plloL slLes supporLed Lhe model ln Lhe absLracL and found several
aspecLs of SLLu (e.g., posL-observaLlon conferences wlLh evaluaLors) qulLe valuable.
1here ls some evldence of changed pracLlces on Lhe parL of Leachers and admlnlsLraLors
due Lo SLLu. Whlle SLLu's componenLs were generally lmplemenLed wlLh fldellLy,
opporLunlLles for professlonal growLh Lhrough SLLu were noL fully reallzed. 1o a greaL
exLenL, Lhese challenges were due Lo Lhe lack of clear and conslsLenL communlcaLlon Lo
educaLors abouL SLLu and lnadequaLe opporLunlLles for educaLors Lo consLrucL a robusL
undersLandlng of Lhls new approach Lo evaluaLlon. LducaLors aLLempLed Lo undersLand
Lhe complexlLles of Lhe Lechnlcal and pracLlcal aspecLs of SLLu. Powever, Lhe LlghL
lmplemenLaLlon Llmellne ln some cases encouraged compllance behavlors raLher Lhan
full engagemenL wlLh Lhe model.
1hls emphasls on compllance ls noL uncommon durlng Lhe lnlLlal sLages of a ma[or
reform lnlLlaLlve as parLlclpanLs and lmplemenLers aLLempL Lo adapL Lo a new seL of
rules and rouLlnes. We expecL LhaL dlsLrlcLs wlll begln Lo experlence greaLer beneflLs of
SLLu as educaLors become accusLomed Lo lLs componenLs and ad[usL SLLu Lo Lhelr own
conLexLs. Cur daLa suggesL LhaL, lf sufflclenLly supporLed and properly lmplemenLed,
SLLu has Lhe poLenLlal Lo lmprove Leachers' pracLlce and sLudenLs' learnlng. 1herefore,
3
we recommend LhaL Lhe SLLu model be malnLalned buL LhaL Lhe lnfrasLrucLure Lo clarlfy
and supporL lLs lmplemenLaLlon be sLrengLhened. Accordlngly, we conclude by provldlng
elghL recommendaLlons LhaL we belleve wlll enhance SLLu's poslLlve lmpacL on dlsLrlcLs,
schools, Leachers, and sLudenLs.
MetboJs
lourLeen (14) publlc school dlsLrlcLs (elghL sLand-alone dlsLrlcLs and Lwo consorLla) were
chosen by Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon (SuL) Lo serve as plloL slLes. 8eLween
SepLember 2012, and CcLober 2013, neag researchers from uConn's CenLer for
LducaLlon ollcy Analysls collecLed daLa ln each of Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs. We collecLed Lhree
rounds of lnLervlews wlLh beLween 200 and 300 lndlvlduals ln each round, Lwo rounds
of surveys wlLh Leachers wlLh over 300 respondenLs ln each round, and one round of
surveys wlLh school admlnlsLraLors (o=22).
WlLhln each dlsLrlcL, researchers lnLervlewed superlnLendenLs, asslsLanL
superlnLendenLs (where appllcable), and a sample of prlnclpals, Leachers, and oLher
educaLors who are evaluaLed under Lhe SLLu framework. We also lnLervlewed
presldenLs of unlon locals, sLaLe-level unlon leaders, and 8eglonal LducaLlonal Servlce
CenLer (8LSC) represenLaLlves who provlded Lhe Lralnlng on Lhe SLLu model Lo
educaLors ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs.
1he 14 plloL dlsLrlcLs were ldenLlfled by Lhe SuL from a larger group of dlsLrlcLs LhaL
volunLeered Lo Lake parL ln Lhe plloL program. ln each of Lhe 14 dlsLrlcLs, we selecLed a
sample of schools and educaLors wlLhln Lhose schools uslng a Lwo-sLage, sLraLlfled
sampllng Lechnlque. We selecLed a mlnlmum of 20 of Lhe schools aL each level (hlgh
school, mlddle school, elemenLary school) based on characLerlsLlcs LhaL mlghL lnfluence
pollcy lmplemenLaLlon such as Lhe sLudenL populaLlon served, leadershlp Lurnover, and
lnlLlaLlves or programs of sLudy (e.g., dual language program, alLernaLlve educaLlon
program). 1hlrLy-seven schools were purposely sampled Lo reflecL a wlde range of
school seLLlngs and grade levels. ln Lhe consorLla, we collecLed daLa ln all schools. ln
each school, we lnLervlewed Lhe prlnclpal and, ln some cases, an asslsLanL prlnclpal.
LducaLors (Leachers and oLhers who are evaluaLed wlLh Lhe same framework) wlLhln
Lhese same schools were randomly selecLed Lo obLaln an lnLervlew sample represenLlng
Leachers of a range of grade levels and sub[ecLs and non-Leachlng personnel wlLh a
range of asslgnmenLs. We dellberaLely sLraLlfled our samples of educaLors by Lhree
Lypes: core academlc Leachers, relaLed arLs educaLors, and sLudenL supporL personnel.
We used Lhe raLlos across Lhese caLegorles presenL ln each school Lo deLermlne Lhe
number of lnLervlew parLlclpanLs ln each caLegory for LhaL school. 8andom samples of
educaLors were Lhen drawn by researchers.
lloJloqs
We gaLhered daLa relaLed Lo SLLu's lmplemenLaLlon, educaLors' experlences wlLh SLLu,
and lnlLlal ouLcomes of SLLu.

4

lmplemenLaLlon
We found LhaL all plloL dlsLrlcLs lmplemenLed almosL all aspecLs of Lhe SLLu model.
ulsLrlcLs focused Lhelr efforLs on Lwo componenLs of Lhe SLLu model ln parLlcular: Lhe
SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlves (SLCs) componenL, worLh 43 of a Leacher's raLlng, and
lnsLrucLlonal racLlce, consLlLuLlng 40 of a Leacher's raLlng. arLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL
Lhey had recelved more observaLlons and feedback Lhan ln prlor years.

Speclflcally, we found:
1he number of basellne observaLlons requlred by SLLu (3 formal, 3 lnformal)
proved challenglng, buL mosL dlsLrlcLs were able Lo compleLe 2 formal and 2
lnformal observaLlons:
o 69 of Leachers surveyed reporLed havlng Lwo or more lnformal
observaLlons, 64 reporLed Lwo or more formal observaLlons
LducaLors reporLed lncreased Llme on evaluaLlon acLlvlLles compared Lo prlor
(pre-SLLu) years:
o 30 of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey had been observed more Lhan ln
prevlous years
o 74 of Leachers reporLed spendlng more Llme on goal seLLlng Lhan under
prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems

We found LhaL Lhe followlng componenLs of SLLu were lmplemenLed wlLh less fldellLy Lo
Lhe model Lhan Lhe SLC or lnsLrucLlonal pracLlce componenLs: parenL/peer feedback,
sLudenL feedback, and Lhe developmenL of professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles
connecLed Lo evaluaLlon resulLs. Moreover, SLLu for school admlnlsLraLors was
lmplemenLed wlLh less fldellLy and on a much more compressed Llmellne Lhan was SLLu
for Leachers. 1hls seemed largely due Lo dlsLrlcLs' emphasls on lmplemenLlng SLCs and
observaLlon for Leachers.

Lxperlences
We found LhaL mosL educaLors ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs agreed wlLh Lhe SLLu model ln
Lheory. very few educaLors re[ecLed SLLu ouL of hand. arLlclpanLs, especlally Leachers,
ralsed concerns abouL Lhe way ln whlch Lhe SLLu plloL was lmplemenLed. 1eachers were
parLlcularly concerned abouL lack of Lralnlng and lnformaLlon on how Lo develop SLCs.
SpeclallsLs were parLlcularly vocal abouL Lhe ways ln whlch SLLu dld noL address Lhelr
poslLlons. rlnclpals ralsed ob[ecLlons Lo Lhe number of formal and lnformal
observaLlons requlred by Lhe model. ulsLrlcL leaders ralsed few ob[ecLlons oLher Lhan
concerns abouL Lhe rushed lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe model ln Lhe plloL year. Cn Lhe whole,
parLlclpanLs feel LhaL SLLu should be beLLer supporLed Lhrough addlLlonal guldance on
SLCs and lncreased professlonal developmenL. 1hls may help shlfL Lhe percepLlon of
many educaLors ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs LhaL SLLu was a sysLem emphaslzlng Lhelr
evaluaLlon raLher Lhan Lhelr developmenL.

3

ln addlLlon, we found:
38 of Leachers and 39 of admlnlsLraLors surveyed felL LhaL Lhelr summaLlve
raLlngs under SLLu were accuraLe
37 of Leachers surveyed felL LhaL Lhelr posL-observaLlon conferences under
SLLu were valuable"
Cf Lhose Leachers who reporLed LhaL Lhey had spenL more Llme ln posL-
observaLlons conferences under SLLu Lhan under prlor sysLems, 69 felL LhaL
Lhese meeLlngs were valuable
33 of Leachers surveyed reporLed LhaL belng observed under SLLu was
somewhaL or very valuable
94 of admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL observlng Leachers under SLLu was
somewhaL or very valuable Lo Lhem
68 of Leachers surveyed found analyzlng sLudenL daLa valuable

LducaLors ralsed concerns abouL wheLher Lhelr evaluaLors had sufflclenL Llme and
resources Lo carry ouL SLLu as Lhe 2012-13 model prescrlbed. CLher survey and
lnLervlew daLa suggesL LhaL evaluaLors found Llme Lo do Lhe evaluaLlons, buL LhaL scallng
back some requlremenLs may be warranLed. Speclflcally:
Whlle 31 of Leachers felL Lhelr evaluaLors had Lhe knowledge Lo evaluaLe Lhem
accuraLely, only 17 of Leachers felL LhaL Lhelr supervlsor had Lhe Llme and
resources Lo lmplemenL SLLu.

CuLcomes
We also examlned shorL-Lerm ouLcomes of SLLu. Clven LhaL 2012-13 was a plloL year
and LhaL many of Lhe resources Lo supporL SLLu were belng developed as Lhe model
was lmplemenLed for Lhe flrsL Llme, we would noL expecL Lo see large poslLlve ouLcomes.
AL Lhls sLage of lmplemenLaLlon, lL ls reasonable Lo expecL modesL changes ln pracLlce.

ConslsLenL wlLh Lhls expecLaLlon, Leachers expressed mlxed vlews on wheLher SLCs
changed Lhelr pracLlce, buL were more poslLlve abouL Lhe lnfluence of observaLlons on
Lhelr Leachlng. AdmlnlsLraLors reporLed modesL changes as a resulL of admlnlsLraLor
SLLu.
44 of Leachers surveyed agreed LhaL feedback from observaLlons prompLed
Lhem Lo change Lhelr pracLlce
33 of admlnlsLraLors surveyed lndlcaLed LhaL seLLlng SLCs led Leachers Lo make
changes ln Lhelr Leachlng pracLlce
42 of Leachers surveyed felL LhaL wlLh sufflclenL resources, such as Llme and
sLafflng, SLLu could lmprove Leacher pracLlce aL Lhelr school
74 of admlnlsLraLors surveyed felL LhaL wlLh sufflclenL resources, such as Llme
and sLafflng, SLLu could lmprove Leacher pracLlce aL Lhelr school

6

varlaLlons
We found varlaLlons by school level, Leachers' Lenure sLaLus, and dlsLrlcL. LlemenLary
Leachers and non-Lenured Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey had recelved a hlgher number of
observaLlons Lhan Lhelr secondary school and Lenured counLerparLs. 1hey also reporLed
SLLu Lo be more valuable and have greaLer poLenLlal beneflLs Lhan dld Lhelr secondary
school and Lenured counLerparLs. ulsLrlcLs wlLh lower sLudenL performance and mulLlple
lnlLlaLlves underway reporLed less robusL lmplemenLaLlon and less favorable aLLlLudes
Lowards SLLu's currenL or poLenLlal lmpacL on pracLlce.

kecommeoJotloos
8ased on Lhese flndlngs, we recommend LhaL Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon carry
ouL Lhe followlng:
1. rov|de add|t|ona| opportun|t|es for a|| educators to |earn about SLLD. 1here ls a
need for addlLlonal professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles for all educaLors wlLh respecL
Lo SLLu. rofesslonal learnlng needs fall lnLo Lwo caLegorles: one ls beLLer
undersLandlng and lmplemenLlng Lhe Lechnlcal aspecLs of SLLu (seLLlng goals,
conducLlng observaLlons, and provldlng posL-observaLlon feedback) and Lhe oLher ls
lmproved developmenL of educaLors (by provldlng lndlvlduallzed and LargeLed
professlonal developmenL). We sLrongly recommend LhaL boLh admlnlsLraLors ooJ
Leachers recelve Lhls Lralnlng, raLher Lhan relylng on a Lraln-Lhe-Lralner model as was
Lhe case ln Lhe plloL year of SLLu.

2. 8u||d the sk|||s of eva|uators, |n part|cu|ar. 1eacher survey and lnLervlew daLa
lndlcaLed subsLanLlal varlablllLy ln Lhe percelved sklll level of evaluaLors. 1hls
varlance occurred wlLhln and across dlsLrlcLs, and even wlLhln schools. Such a flndlng
polnLs Lo Lhe need for admlnlsLraLors Lo develop and reflne Lhelr supervlsory skllls.
We suggesL Lhere be processes for ldenLlfylng evaluaLors ln need of lmprovemenL
and Lhen offerlng speclallzed Lralnlng Lo Lhese lndlvlduals. 1he SuL, along wlLh
professlonal organlzaLlons and reglonal consorLla, should provlde professlonal
developmenL Lo evaluaLors ln uslng Lhe CC1 8ubrlc for LffecLlve 1eachlng,
conducLlng formal and lnformal observaLlons, and provldlng verbal and wrlLLen
feedback. 1hese professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles are crlLlcal Lo Lhe success of any
Leacher evaluaLlon reform.

3. Increase the use of comp|ementary observers. LducaLors reporLed LhaL SLLu places
slgnlflcanL Llme demands on school admlnlsLraLors. We recommend LhaL dlsLrlcLs
conslder lncludlng complemenLary observers wlLhln Lhelr Leacher evaluaLlon
sysLems. lncludlng complemenLary evaluaLors noL only reduces Lhe Llme demands
on prlnclpals and asslsLanL prlnclpals, buL also enhances Lhe professlonal role of
Leachers by provldlng addlLlonal leadershlp roles for Leachers. under Lhe monlker of
peer asslsLance and revlew, such sysLems have been adopLed by several hlgh-proflle
7
dlsLrlcLs ln oLher sLaLes (e.g. ClnclnnaLl, MonLgomery CounLy, Mu) and have shown
promlslng ouLcomes ln Lerms of Leacher performance and sLudenL learnlng. 1he SuL
can help by sharlng effecLlve models wlLh Lhose ln Lhe fleld and provldlng Lhe
requlred Lralnlng for complemenLary observers.

4. rov|de add|t|ona| gu|dance on Student Learn|ng Cb[ect|ves and Ind|cators of
Academ|c Growth and Deve|opment. As SLLu has begun ln earnesL, we recommend
LhaL Lhe SuL conLlnue Lo provlde clear guldance on Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon of valld lACu
LargeLs. 1he SMA81 goals heurlsLlc ls helpful alLhough does noL dlcLaLe whaL
performance level or sLudenL growLh LargeL ls boLh aLLalnable" and sufflclenLly
challenglng. Some Leachers or admlnlsLraLors are selecLlng far Loo challenglng
LargeLs whlle oLhers are chooslng far Loo easy. 1he seLLlng of lACu growLh LargeLs ls
ln mosL cases lnherenLly arblLrary. Should 100 of sLudenLs score a 70 on an exam
or should 70 of sLudenLs score aL 100? lf half Lhe sLudenLs fall below a cerLaln
performance level aL Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe year, whaL percenLage should reasonably
be expecLed Lo meeL lL by Lhe end of Lhe year? lurLher, whaL ls meanL by growLh
dlffers based on Lhe measures avallable (e.g., conLrasL pre and posL measures from a
verLlcally-scaled assessmenL wlLh sLaLlc measures of performance on a locally
developed LesL). 1here are checks and balances bullL lnLo Lhe sysLem, such as Lhe
mld-year check-lns, LhaL are lnLended Lo provlde aL leasL one opporLunlLy Lo ad[usL
growLh goals. Powever, Lhe selecLlon of lACu LargeLs ls an area LhaL deserves close
aLLenLlon as Lhe SLLu model evolves.

3. C|ar|fy and contextua||ze SLLD to d|str|ct and schoo| personne|. 1eachers ln plloL
dlsLrlcLs expressed LrepldaLlon over Lhe number and magnlLude of new reform
lnlLlaLlves Lhey faced, and vlewed Leacher evaluaLlon as addlng one more Lhlng" Lo
Lhelr already busy agenda. lL would be helpful lf educaLlonal leaders and pollcy
makers demonsLraLed how educaLor evaluaLlon lnLerfaces wlLh Lhe lmplemenLaLlon
of oLher ma[or lnlLlaLlves such as Lhe Common Core SLaLe SLandards and SmarLer
8alanced AssessmenLs. Moreover, make clear Lo dlsLrlcLs any flexlblllLy Lhey have
wlLh regard Lo lmplemenLlng SLLu or Lhe Core 8equlremenLs. AdmlnlsLraLors are
lnLerpreLlng SLLu wlLh more rlgldlLy Lhan Lhe model acLually requlres.

6. D|ssem|nate prom|s|ng pract|ces. We recommend a coordlnaLed efforL by SuL
and/or reglonal dlsLrlcL consorLla Lo ldenLlfy and dlssemlnaLe promlslng pracLlces"
relaLlve Lo SLLu and educaLor evaluaLlon. ConnecLlcuL educaLors represenL an
exLraordlnarlly rlch source of lngenulLy and LalenL and should be acLlvely engaged ln
Lhe conLlnuous lmprovemenL of evaluaLlon as Lhey adapL Lhe model Lo Lhelr own
dlsLrlcL conLexLs and explore new processes. ln some seLLlngs we found evldence of
schools uslng SLLu Lo promoLe deep conversaLlons abouL Leachlng and learnlng. lor
example, one school plloLed Lhe use of vldeo cameras Lo faclllLaLe Lhe evaluaLlon of
Leachers. 1eachers reporLed LhaL Lhls approach reduced Lhelr anxleLy Lo perform"
ln fronL a llve observer and faclllLaLed conversaLlons wlLh Lhelr evaluaLor by helplng
8
Lhem undersLand Lhe evaluaLor's feedback.

7. rov|de add|t|ona| ass|stance to |ow-perform|ng d|str|cts to support SLLD's
|mp|ementat|on. We belleve LhaL Lhe sLaLe should provlde addlLlonal asslsLance Lo
low-performlng dlsLrlcLs Lo supporL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu. 1hls
recommendaLlon ls supporLed by our flndlng LhaL lower-performlng dlsLrlcLs wlLh
mulLlple lnlLlaLlves underway encounLered parLlcular challenges ln lmplemenLlng
SLLu. rovldlng addlLlonal supporL and asslsLance Lo Lhese dlsLrlcLs may help Lhem
lnLegraLe SLLu wlLh oLher lnlLlaLlves and lncrease Lhe chance LhaL Lhe reform spurs
poslLlve change ln Lhelr schools and classrooms.

8. Cont|nue to track SLLD's |mp|ementat|on and effects. We recommend LhaL Lhe
sLaLe conLlnue Lo gaLher daLa from educaLors aL regular lnLervals Lo lnform Lhe
conLlnuous lmprovemenL of Lhe model. ln addlLlon, we recommend Lracklng Lhe
model's uLlllLy ln raLlng Lhe annual performance of educaLors and admlnlsLraLors.
Speclflcally, we recommend LhaL Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween SLLu and sLudenL
achlevemenL be examlned.

9
Introduct|on

ln !une 2012, Lhe ConnecLlcuL Ceneral Assembly passed leglslaLlon mandaLlng LhaL Lhe
SysLem for LducaLor LvaluaLlon and uevelopmenL (SLLu) be plloLed ln Lhe 2012-13
school year. 1he neag School of LducaLlon was dlrecLed Lo sLudy Lhe enacLmenL of SLLu
or Lhe Core 8equlremenLs ln Lhe plloL school dlsLrlcLs and reporL flndlngs Lo Lhe SLaLe
8oard of LducaLlon and LducaLlon CommlLLee Lo lnform fuLure lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu.
1he purpose of our sLudy was Lo examlne Lhe lmplemenLaLlon and shorL-Lerm ouLcomes
of ConnecLlcuL's new educaLor evaluaLlon model ln Lhe 10 plloL school
dlsLrlcLs/consorLla (14 dlsLrlcLs ln LoLal). Cur broader alm was Lo provlde feedback on
SLLu's plloL lmplemenLaLlon so LhaL Lhe model could be lmproved and beLLer supporL
lmprovemenLs Lo Leachers' pracLlce and sLudenLs' learnlng.
8eLween fall, 2012, and fall, 2013, we collecLed quanLlLaLlve and quallLaLlve daLa ln all
14 plloL dlsLrlcLs. uaLa addressed SLLu's lmplemenLaLlon, educaLors' experlences wlLh
SLLu, and key ouLcomes of SLLu's plloL year.
8ased on Lhese daLa, we flnd LhaL SLLu was lmplemenLed ln Lhe plloL slLes wlLh a
relaLlvely hlgh degree of fldellLy Lo Lhe model. Moreover, mosL educaLors ln Lhe plloL
slLes supporLed Lhe model ln Lhe absLracL and found several aspecLs of SLLu (e.g., posL-
observaLlon conferences wlLh evaluaLors) qulLe valuable. 1here ls some evldence of
changed pracLlces on Lhe parL of Leachers and admlnlsLraLors due Lo SLLu. Whlle SLLu's
componenLs were generally lmplemenLed wlLh fldellLy, opporLunlLles for professlonal
growLh Lhrough SLLu were noL fully reallzed. 1o a greaL exLenL, Lhese challenges were
due Lo Lhe lack of clear and conslsLenL communlcaLlon Lo educaLors abouL SLLu and
lnadequaLe opporLunlLles for educaLors Lo consLrucL a robusL undersLandlng of Lhls new
approach Lo evaluaLlon. LducaLors aLLempLed Lo undersLand Lhe complexlLles of Lhe
Lechnlcal and pracLlcal aspecLs of SLLu. Powever, Lhe LlghL lmplemenLaLlon Llmellne ln
some cases encouraged compllance behavlors raLher Lhan full engagemenL wlLh Lhe
model.
1hls emphasls on compllance ls noL uncommon durlng Lhe lnlLlal sLages of a ma[or
reform lnlLlaLlve as parLlclpanLs and lmplemenLers adapL Lo a new seL of rules and
rouLlnes. We expecL LhaL dlsLrlcLs wlll begln Lo experlence greaLer beneflLs of SLLu as
educaLors become accusLomed Lo lLs componenLs and adapL SLLu Lo Lhelr own conLexLs.
Cur daLa suggesL LhaL, lf sufflclenLly supporLed, SLLu has good poLenLlal Lo lmprove
Leachers' pracLlce and sLudenLs' learnlng.
1he reporL ls organlzed as follows. SecLlon ll presenLs Lhe meLhods employed for Lhls
sLudy. SecLlon lll presenLs Lhe flndlngs and ls organlzed lnLo Lhree sub-secLlons: one on
lmplemenLaLlon, one on educaLors' experlences wlLh SLLu, and Lhe flnal secLlon
devoLed Lo ouLcomes of SLLu for lLs plloL year. We conclude wlLh secLlon lv, whlch
presenLs recommendaLlons based on our analyses of Lhe daLa. 1hls reporL represenLs
10
Lhe flnal dellverable as requesLed by ubllc AcL no. 12-116. uurlng our year of daLa
collecLlon and analysls, oral presenLaLlons were made Lo Lhe erformance LvaluaLlon
Advlsory Councll on lebruary 4, 2013 and !uly 10, 2013. 1hese lnLerlm reporLs were
deslgned Lo provlde sLaLe pollcy makers wlLh Llmely feedback on Lhe flrsL Lwo phases of
Lhe evaluaLlon cycle.

11
Methods

Cur sLudy followed a mlxed meLhods research deslgn. 8eLween SepLember 2012 and
CcLober 2013, we collecLed quallLaLlve and quanLlLaLlve daLa descrlblng Lhe
lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu. We examlned Lhree seLs of research quesLlons relaLed Lo
pollcy lmplemenLaLlon, educaLor experlences, and pollcy ouLcomes:
5u lollcy lmplemeototloo
1. Pow was SLLu enacLed ln each plloL slLe? Was Lhere fldellLy Lo Lhe SLaLe
Model?
2. uld SLLu creaLe opporLunlLles for professlonal growLh for Leachers and
admlnlsLraLors? 1o whaL exLenL were Lhese dlfferenLlaLed across lndlvlduals
or subgroups?
3. WhaL varlaLlons occurred? WhaL explalns Lhese varlaLlons?

Jocotot xpetleoces wltb 5u
4. Pow dld educaLors ln plloL slLes experlence SLLu?
5u lollcy Ootcomes
6. 1o whaL exLenL dld educaLors reporL changlng Lhelr pracLlces as a resulL of
Lhe SLLu?
7. 1o whaL exLenL was Lhere varlaLlon ln evaluaLlon raLlngs wlLhln schools and
dlsLrlcLs aL Lhe concluslon of Lhe SLLu plloL year?
Samp|e
!"#$%"&$ ()*+,-
lourLeen publlc school dlsLrlcLs (elghL sLand-alone dlsLrlcLs and Lwo mulLl-dlsLrlcL
consorLla) were chosen by Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon (SuL) Lo serve as plloL
slLes. arLlclpaLlng dlsLrlcLs represenL a range of seLLlngs from across Lhe sLaLe (see
1ables 1 and 2 for dlsLrlcL characLerlsLlcs). CSuL selecLed Lhe 14 plloL dlsLrlcLs from a
larger group of dlsLrlcLs LhaL volunLeered Lo Lake parL ln Lhe plloL program. 1hese 14
dlsLrlcLs employed 3,406.3 full Llme equlvalenL (l1L) general educaLlon Leachers ln 2010-
2011, whlch was nlne percenL of Lhe l1L general educaLlon poslLlons ln Lhe sLaLe. 1hese
dlsLrlcLs were responslble for educaLlng 32,401 sLudenLs LhaL same year, whlch ls also
nlne percenL of Lhe sLaLe's enrollmenL.
12
1ab|e 1. Student and 1eacher Demograph|cs for ||ot D|str|cts
ulsLrlcL
# of
Schools
# of
SLudenLs

l8L

Speclal
Ld

LLL
# l1L Cen
Ld
1eachers
Mean
Cen Ld
Salary
8eLhany 1 491 4.3 12.3 < 1.0 37.9 $34,271
8ranford 3 3,363 18.8 13.4 3.8 244.3 $67,936
8rldgeporL 32 20,087 98.8 12.4 13.0 1,133.3 $64,787
CLlS
Columbla 1 339 10.9 7.9 < 1.0 41.8 $66,383
LasLford 1 178 9.6 12.8 - 13.9 $38,244
lranklln 1 222 13.1 10.9 - 13.3 $62,929
SLerllng 1 482 32.0 10.3 - 32.0 $34,472
C8LC 12 4,241 43.1 10.3 2.2 323.3 $63,349
LlLchfleld/ 8eglon 6
LlLchfleld 3 1,169 9.4 10.0 < 1.0 83.9 $67,378
8eglon 6 4 1,042 12.1 11.0 1.2 78.8 $63,110
norwalk 19 11,030 43.2 10.1 12.3 711.2 $80,660
WaLerford 3 2,800 12.4 11.2 1.2 192.6 $74,198
Wlndham 6 3,124 73.3 17.4 26.7 221.3 $61,823
Wlndsor 7 3,613 28.1 12.3 2.7 274.3 $61,827
5tote 1.017 570,494 J4.4X 11.6X 5.5X J5,977.4 567,878
uaLa from Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, 2010-2011

1ab|e 2. Student Ach|evement |n ||ot D|str|cts
ulsLrlcL
SLudenLs AL
Coal ln Crade 3
CM1 - 8eadlng
SLudenLs AL
Coal ln Crade 3
CM1 - WrlLlng
SLudenLs AL
Coal ln Crade 3
CM1 - MaLh
8eLhany 74.6 66.2 66.2
8ranford 66.7 62.6 74.6
8rldgeporL 22.3 29.7 27.3
CLlS
Columbla 64.9 63.3 72.4
LasLford - - -
lranklln - - -
SLerllng 32.9 60.8 62.7
C8LC 70.9 63.1 62.0
LlLchfleld/ 8eglon 6
LlLchfleld 64.6 67.4 68.7
8eglon 6 63.4 30.0 61.7
norwalk 31.9 36.4 62.3
WaLerford 70.9 77.9 70.0
Wlndham 36.6 34.0 33.9
Wlndsor 46.8 43.7 32.8
5tote 58.4X 61.1X 6J.JX
uaLa from Lhe SLaLe ueparLmenL of LducaLlon, 2010-2011
13
(&.//, ()*+,-
ln each of Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs, we purposlvely selecLed a sample of schools ln whlch Lo
conducL focus groups and lnLervlews. We selecLed a mlnlmum of 20 of Lhe schools aL
each level (hlgh school, mlddle school, elemenLary school) based on characLerlsLlcs LhaL
mlghL lnfluence pollcy lmplemenLaLlon, such as Lhe sLudenL populaLlon served,
leadershlp Lurnover, and lnlLlaLlves or programs of sLudy (e.g., dual language program,
alLernaLlve educaLlon program). ln small dlsLrlcLs wlLh only one school aL each level, we
lncluded all of LhaL dlsLrlcL's schools ln Lhe sample. ln Lhe consorLla slLes, we lncluded
schools from each dlsLrlcL. ln LoLal, 41 schools parLlclpaLed ln Lhe focus groups and
lnLervlews for Lhls sLudy, represenLlng 42 of Lhe schools ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs.
All schools ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs were lnvlLed Lo parLlclpaLe ln Lhe Lwo surveys, furLher
deLall ls provlded below.
01$-%2"-3 )14 5/&6# 7%/6+ ()*+,-
SuperlnLendenLs from each plloL dlsLrlcL and, ln some cases, oLher cenLral offlce
personnel, parLlclpaLed ln lnLervlews.
We selecLed educaLors wlLhln each sample school Lo parLlclpaLe ln lnLervlews and focus
groups. We lncluded all prlnclpals and, ln some schools, also an asslsLanL prlnclpal or
uean of SLudenLs, from each school ln our sample. ln LoLal, 37 school leaders
parLlclpaLed ln Lhe sLudy (see 1ables 3-3 for lnLervlew and focus group parLlclpanLs by
dlsLrlcL/consorLlum for each round of daLa collecLlon).
ln addlLlon Lo school leaders, we sampled educaLors who are evaluaLed under Lhe
Leacher porLlon of SLLu. lor Lhls group, we selecLed parLlclpanLs Lo represenL a range of
grade levels, sub[ecLs, and roles wlLhln Lhe school. We dellberaLely lncluded oLher
personnel, such as school psychologlsLs and speech paLhologlsLs, who are evaluaLed
under SLLu. We randomly selecLed Leachers and speclallsLs Lo represenL 20 of each
school's faculLy. We welghLed Lhese random samples Lo reflecL Lhe proporLlons of core
academlc Leachers (l.e. Leachers of maLhemaLlcs, sclence, Lngllsh Language ArLs, and
soclal sclences), relaLed arLs Leachers (e.g., arLs, physlcal educaLlon, world languages),
and speclallsLs (e.g., speclal educaLlon Leacher, school counselor) presenL ln Lhe school.
Samples were drawn by researchers, school or dlsLrlcL leaders were noL lnvolved ln
sample selecLlon (see 1ables 3-3 for lnLervlew and focus group samples by phase of daLa
collecLlon).
14
1ab|e 3. Interv|ew and Iocus Group Samp|e |n hase 1 by ||ot D|str|ct]Consort|um
ulsLrlcL/ConsorLlum
number of lnLervlew/locus Croup arLlclpanLs ln hase 1
Schools*
ulsLrlcL
Leaders
School
Leaders 1eachers SpeclallsLs 1otol
8eLhany 1 0 2 10 2 15
8ranford 2 2 0 11 3 18
8rldgeporL 7 1 7 73 9 97
CLlS
1
4 4 3 41 3 57
C8LC
2
6 1 6 31 2 46
LlLchfleld/8eglon 6 4 2 3 13 8 J2
norwalk 3 1 3 36 3 48
WaLerford 2 2 3 27 3 J7
Wlndham 4 2 4 26 23 59
Wlndsor 2 2 2 28 9 4J
1otol J5 17 J7 296 67 452
*Schools ln LargeL sample,
1
Columbla-LasLford-lranklln-SLerllng,
2
CaplLol 8eglon LducaLlon Councll
1ab|e 4. Interv|ew and Iocus Group Samp|e |n hase 2 by ||ot D|str|ct]Consort|um
ulsLrlcL/ConsorLlum
Schools*
ulsLrlcL
Leaders
School
8eLhany 1 0 2 6 0 8
8ranford 3 0 0 10 2 12
8rldgeporL 3 2 1 23 8 J6
CLlS
1
4 2 3 34 0 J9
C8LC
2
3 1 4 29 2 J6
LlLchfleld/8eglon 6 3 0 3 19 2 24
norwalk 1 2 0 1 0 J
WaLerford 0 2 0 0 0 2
Wlndham 4 2 4 31 11 48
Wlndsor 1 0 1 0 0 1
1otol 27 11 18 155 25 209
1
2

13
1ab|e S. Interv|ew and Iocus Group Samp|e |n hase 3 by ||ot D|str|ct]Consort|um
ulsLrlcL/ConsorLlum
Schools*
ulsLrlcL
Leaders
School
8eLhany 1 2 4 2 8
8ranford 3 2 10 1 1J
8rldgeporL 6 1 42 13 58
CLlS
1
4 2 1 29 J2
C8LC
2
6 1 34 1 J6
LlLchfleld/8eglon 6 3 2 3 19 6 J0
norwalk 3 2 3 36 2 6J
WaLerford 3 1 2 29 3 J5
Wlndham 4 2 3 24 13 46
Wlndsor 2 2 7 22 3 J6
1otol J7 14 24 269 50 J57
1
2
We also lnLervlewed unlon presldenLs ln all buL one plloL dlsLrlcL and sLaLe-level unlon
represenLaLlves from CLA and Al1-ConnecLlcuL (n=16). LasLly, we lnLervlewed Lralners
from Lhe 8eglonal LducaLlonal SupporL Counclls (8LSCs) lnvolved wlLh SLLu Lralnlngs
and roll-ouL. 1hese parLlclpanLs provlded addlLlonal lnformaLlon abouL Lhe conLexL of
SLLu deslgn and lmplemenLaLlon and provlded a source for LrlangulaLlon of daLa
provlded by dlsLrlcL and school leaders and Leachers.
Survey Samp|es
We lnvlLed all educaLors wlLhln Lhe sample schools Lo parLlclpaLe ln surveys durlng
wlnLer/sprlng, 2012, and agaln ln fall, 2013. 8eLween 17 and 81 of Leachers wlLhln
each sample school responded Lo Lhe flrsL survey, yleldlng a LoLal number of 684
parLlclpanLs, beLween 13 and 33 of Leachers wlLhln Lhe sample schools responded Lo
Lhe second survey, yleldlng 333 parLlclpanLs
1
(see 1ables 6-7 for survey samples and
response raLes and 1able 8 for characLerlsLlcs of Leachers ln survey samples).

1
It was important to provide anonymity to educators so they could feel comfortable being honest in their
survey responses. Therefore we did not ask participants to identify themselves on the surveys and cannot
determine what percentage of educators responded to both surveys.
16
1ab|e 6. Survey Samp|e and kesponse kates for I|rst Survey

ulsLrlcL/ConsorLlum Schools* Sample
School
opulaLlon**
ulsLrlcL
opulaLlon***
n n n n
8eLhany 1 16 2 67 24 67 24
CLlS 3 69 10 120 38 130 33
C8LC 6 142 21 173 81 316 28
LlLchfleld/8eglon 6 3 80 12 177 43 209 38
norwalk 3 38 9 342 17 892 7
WaLerford 3 84 12 160 33 244 34
Wlndham 3 138 20 217 64 302 46
Wlndsor 1 97 14 288 34 387 23
1otol 25 684 100X 1,546 44X 2,747 25X
*8rldgeporL dld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe survey dlssemlnaLlon
**ercenLage of LargeL sample
***ercenLage of enLlre dlsLrlcL/consorLla, noL ad[usLed for reduced sample of schools

1ab|e 7. Survey Samp|e and kesponse kates for Second Survey

ulsLrlcL/ConsorLlum Schools* Sample
School
opulaLlon**
ulsLrlcL
opulaLlon***
o o X o X o X
8ranford 3 68 13 213 32 309 22
8rldgeporL 4 91 17 373 24 1,607 6
CLlS 2 16 3 66 24 71 23
C8LC 3 92 17 173 33 316 18
LlLchfleld/8eglon 6 6 34 6 177 19 209 16
norwalk 6 47 9 342 14 892 3
WaLerford 3 39 11 160 37 244 24
Wlndham 6 90 17 217 41 302 30
Wlndsor 1 36 7 288 13 387 9
1otol J8 5JJ 100X 2,067 26X 4,596 12X
*8eLhany, lranklln, and SLerllng dld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe second survey
**ercenLage of LargeL sample
***ercenLage of enLlre dlsLrlcL/consorLla, noL ad[usLed for reduced sample of schools
Cf Lhe 683 Leachers who responded Lo Lhe flrsL survey, 23 (n=173) were noL Lenured,
36 (n=383) were Lenured, and 19 (n=127) decllned Lo lndlcaLe Lenure sLaLus. 1wenLy-
flve percenL (n=167) LaughL aL Lhe elemenLary school level, 13 (n=101) LaughL aL Lhe
mlddle school level, and 39 (n=263) LaughL aL Lhe hlgh school level, 13 (n=92)
decllned Lo lndlcaLe grade level. 1here were slmllar paLLerns of represenLaLlon ln Lhe
sample for Lhe second survey. Cf Lhe 333 Leachers who responded Lo Lhe second survey,
13 (n=82) were noL Lenured, 67 (n=336) were Lenured, and 18 (n=93) decllned Lo
lndlcaLe Lhelr Lenure sLaLus. A Lhlrd (33, n=178) of respondenLs Leach aL Lhe
17
elemenLary school level, 19 (n=101) Leacher aL Lhe mlddle school level, and 27
(n=143) Leach aL Lhe hlgh school level, 21 (n=111) decllned Lo lndlcaLe Lhelr grade level.
1ab|e 8. Character|st|cs of 1eachers |n Survey Samp|es
Mld-?ear Survey Lnd of ?ear Survey
o X o X
Lxperlence 1eachlng
1-4 years 202 30 46 9
3-10 years 164 24 100 19
11-13 years 83 12 94 18
16-20 years 41 6 80 13
> 20 years 33 8 123 24
uecllned Lo Answer 138 20 88 17
PlghesL uegree
8achelor's 3 1 20 4
MasLers of LducaLlon 317 46 236 48
CLher MasLers 198 29 139 30
uocLoraLe 20 3 11 3
8ace/LLhnlclLy
8lack/Afrlcan 17 3 16 3
Aslan/aclflc lslander 12 2 8 2
Plspanlc/LaLlno 18 3 23 3
naLlve Amerlcan 3 < 1 2 < 1
WhlLe 437 67 369 69
Cender
lemale 431 63 336 63
Male 49 7 76 14

We also admlnlsLered one survey Lo school admlnlsLraLors ln fall, 2013. 1wenLy-Lwo
admlnlsLraLors from elghL dlsLrlcLs and 14 schools compleLed Lhe survey. 1he ma[orlLy
of respondenLs were prlnclpals (33), wlLh 23 ldenLlfylng as asslsLanL prlnclpals and
Lhe remalnlng 23 decllnlng Lo lndlcaLe. llfLy percenL of respondenLs reporLed havlng
fewer Lhan 3 years of experlence as an admlnlsLraLor.
18
1ab|e 9. kespondent Demograph|cs for Adm|n|strator Survey (n=22)
1 8
kole
rlnclpal 12 33
AsslsLanL rlnclpal 3 23
uecllned Lo lndlcaLe 3 23
eots of xpetleoce
1 - 4 ?ears 11 30
3 - 10 ?ears 3 23
11 - 13 ?ears 2 9
16 - 20 ?ears 0 0
More Lhan 20 ?ears 0 0
eots ot cotteot 5cbool
1 - 4 ?ears 6 27
3 - 10 ?ears 4 18
11 - 13 ?ears 3 23
16 - 20 ?ears 1 3
More Lhan 20 ?ears 2 9

Data Co||ect|on
We collecLed daLa ln four phases.
hase 1: 8eLween CcLober and uecember 2012, we lnLervlewed superlnLendenLs
(and oLher dlsLrlcL leaders, ln some cases), prlnclpals, dlsLrlcL unlon presldenLs and sLaLe-
level unlon represenLaLlves. We also conducLed focus groups wlLh Leachers and sLudenL
supporL personnel ln sample schools.
hase 2: 8eLween !anuary and mld-Aprll 2013, we conducLed a second round of
lnLervlews and focus groups wlLh prlnclpals, Leachers, and sLudenL supporL personnel.
We also admlnlsLered surveys Lo Leachers and sLudenL supporL personnel ln Lhe sample
schools.
hase 3: ln May and !une 2013, we conducLed a flnal round of lnLervlews and
focus groups wlLh superlnLendenLs, prlnclpals, Leachers, and sLudenL supporL personnel.
lollow-up lnLervlews wlLh unlon personnel were also conducLed.
hase 4: ln SepLember 2013, we admlnlsLered a second survey Lo Leachers and
sLudenL supporL personnel.

19
Data Ana|ys|s
uaLa were analyzed uslng sLandard quanLlLaLlve and quallLaLlve analyLlc Lechnlques. lor
survey analysls, we compuLed descrlpLlve sLaLlsLlcs and performed L-LesLs Lo dlscern
dlfferences beLween groups. lor lnLervlew and focus group daLa, we compleLed
LhemaLlc summarles for many lnLervlews and compleLed cross-case analyses of Lhe daLa.
L|m|tat|ons
As wlLh all research, Lhls sLudy has llmlLaLlons. 1he maln weakness of Lhls sLudy's deslgn
ls lLs rellance on self-reporLed daLa obLalned Lhrough lnLervlews and surveys. We
aLLempLed Lo address Lhls weakness ln Lhe deslgn Lhrough LrlangulaLlon of daLa sources
and flndlngs. Speclflcally, we gaLhered daLa on slmllar Loplcs from mulLlple sLakeholders
(e.g. Leachers and prlnclpals), Lhrough varled daLa collecLlon lnsLrumenLs (l.e. lnLervlew
and survey), and aL mulLlple polnLs durlng SLLu's lmplemenLaLlon. 1hrough Lhese
varled forms of daLa, we aLLempLed Lo reduce Lhe blas LhaL can arlse Lhrough self-reporL.
Note on 1erm|no|ogy
1hroughouL Lhls reporL we use Lhe general Lerm Leachers" Lo refer Lo Lhose lndlvlduals
evaluaLed under SLLu's Leacher porLlon. 1hus, speclallsLs" such as school psychologlsLs
are lncluded under Lhe umbrella Lerm of Leacher." When Lhe daLa lndlcaLed
dlfferences beLween classroom Leachers and speclallsLs, we noLe LhaL by expllclLly
referrlng Lo Lhe experlences of speclallsLs."

20
I|nd|ngs on the Imp|ementat|on of SLLD

ConslsLenL wlLh our charge, we examlned Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu wlLhln Lhe 14
plloL dlsLrlcLs. ln Lhls secLlon, we dlscuss our flndlngs relaLed Lo Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of
SLLu for Leachers and school admlnlsLraLors. We presenL daLa LhaL responds Lo Lhe
followlng quesLlons:
1. Pow was SLLu enacLed ln each plloL slLe? Was Lhere fldellLy Lo Lhe SLaLe
Model?
2. uld SLLu creaLe opporLunlLles for professlonal growLh for Leachers and
admlnlsLraLors? 1o whaL exLenL were Lhese dlfferenLlaLed across lndlvlduals
or subgroups?

ln general, we found LhaL schools and dlsLrlcLs ln Lhe plloL program lmplemenLed all of
Lhe componenLs of Lhe SLLu model. Powever, ln many cases dlsLrlcLs dld noL fully
lmplemenL each componenL of Lhe model or lmplemenLed componenLs ln ways LhaL dld
noL caplLallze on SLLu's poLenLlal Lo lmprove Leachers' or leaders' pracLlces. 1hls flndlng
ls conslsLenL wlLh research on Lhe flrsL year of oLher new lnlLlaLlves ln educaLlon or oLher
secLors.
2
ln addlLlon, many schools focused on baslc compllance wlLh Lhe SLLu pollcy
raLher Lhan uslng SLLu Lo drlve lmprovemenLs ln educaLors' pracLlces. 1hls focus on
compllance ls Lo be expecLed glven Lhe plloL naLure of Lhe lmplemenLaLlon ln 2012-13.
ulsLrlcLs' Llmellne for lmplemenLlng SLLu was fasL and Lhe developmenL of resources Lo
supporL SLLu someLlmes lagged lmplemenLaLlon ln plloL dlsLrlcLs. We furLher found LhaL
schools wlLh Lhe greaLesL challenges (l.e., very low sLudenL achlevemenL and mulLlple
reform lnlLlaLlves) seemed Lo have Lhe mosL dlfflculLles ln uslng Lhe model Lo drlve
lmprovemenLs ln pracLlce.
ln Lhe secLlons below, we flrsL dlscuss Lhe fldellLy of lmplemenLaLlon of varlous
componenLs of SLLu, lncludlng observaLlons, posL-observaLlon conferences,
professlonal growLh opporLunlLles, and Lhe admlnlsLraLor-evaluaLlon porLlon of SLLu.
We Lhen Lurn Lo varlaLlons ln lmplemenLaLlon.
I|de||ty to SLLD
Assesslng fldellLy of lmplemenLaLlon ls lmporLanL because lL can help surface areas of
Lhe model LhaL are parLlcularly challenglng, unclear, or worklng well. lldellLy daLa are
also helpful as a backdrop when [udglng Lhe shorL-Lerm ouLcomes of Lhe model. Cur

2
See, for example, Lhe Concerns-8ased AdopLlon Model, whlch poslLs a predlcLable serles of behavlor
among lndlvlduals faced wlLh slgnlflcanL organlzaLlonal change (Pord, 8uLherford, Pullng-AusLln, & Pall,
1987). A cogenL summary can be found on Lhe naLlonal Academy of Sclences webslLe aL
hLLp://www.nas.edu/rlse/backg4a.hLm.
21
purpose was noL Lo caLch" dlsLrlcLs noL adherlng Lo Lhe model buL raLher Lo assess Lhe
efflcacy of Lhe model among plloLs and Lo lnform our own work as evaluaLors.
SLLu requlres LhaL Leachers be assessed based on Lhe degree Lo whlch Lhey aLLaln Lhelr
SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlves (SLCs), Lhelr performance on Lhree formal and Lhree
lnformal observaLlons, parenL feedback, and whole-school measures of sLudenL learnlng
or sLudenL feedback. We assessed Lhe exLenL Lo whlch SLLu was lmplemenLed wlLh
fldellLy by gaLherlng daLa on Lhe degree Lo whlch Lhe followlng componenLs of Lhe
model were enacLed: SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlve (goal) seLLlng, classroom observaLlons,
and conferences beLween educaLors and Lhelr evaluaLors, lncludlng Lhe mld-year and
summaLlve conference. We furLher ask wheLher professlonal growLh opporLunlLles were
made avallable Lo Leachers ln connecLlon wlLh SLLu and wheLher Lhey were assessed
based on parenL feedback and whole-school measures of sLudenL learnlng or sLudenL
feedback. AL Lhe concluslon of Lhls secLlon, we dlscuss Lhe fldellLy of lmplemenLaLlon of
SLLu's school admlnlsLraLor porLlon.
9:#-%2)$"/1#
A ma[or componenL of SLLu ls classroom observaLlons, gulded by a rubrlc speclfylng
dlfferenL gradaLlons of quallLy ln lnsLrucLlonal pracLlce. SLLu prescrlbed Lhree formal
and Lhree lnformal observaLlons for all Leachers ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs. We found LhaL
prlnclpals encounLered subsLanLlal challenges Lo compleLlng Lhe prescrlbed number of
observaLlons. Cverall, we found LhaL whlle a slzeable porLlon of Lhe Leachers reporLed
LhaL Lhey had recelved Lhe prescrlbed Lhree observaLlons ln each caLegory, Lhe ma[orlLy
reporLed Lhey had recelved fewer.
ln surveys admlnlsLered beLween lebruary and Aprll, 2013, 23 of Leachers reporLed
LhaL Lhey had been lnformally observed aL leasL Lhree Llmes and 8 reporLed LhaL Lhey
had been formally observed Lhree or more Llmes (see llgure 1).

22
I|gure 1. Number of Informa| and Iorma| Cbservat|ons (Spr|ng 2013 Survey, 1=684)

As would be expecLed, surveys admlnlsLered ln SepLember 2013 demonsLraLed a hlgher
number of observaLlons compleLed. 1hlrLy-nlne percenL of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey
had been observed lnformally aL leasL Lhree Llmes wlLh 27 reporLlng LhaL Lhey had
been observed formally Lhls ofLen (llgure 2). 1he facL LhaL 69 of Leachers reporLed LhaL
Lhey had recelved Lwo or more lnformal observaLlons and 64 reporLed LhaL Lhey had
recelved Lwo or more formal observaLlons suggesLs LhaL Lhe requlremenL of Lwo
observaLlons ln each caLegory (l.e., four observaLlons ln LoLal) appears more feaslble ln a
basellne year Lhan Lhe Lhree of each observaLlon mandaLed by Lhe 2012-13 verslon of
SLLu.

2u%
27%
29%
1S%
1u%
11%
S1%
Su%
7%
1%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Not yet 1 time 2 times S times Noie than S
times
Infoimal 0bseivations Foimal 0bseivations
23
I|gure 2. Number of Informa| and Iorma| Cbservat|ons (Ia|| 2013 survey, 1=S33)

ln lnLervlews conducLed ln wlnLer and sprlng, 2013, prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey were
dolng more observaLlons Lhan ln prevlous years. A conslderable number of Leachers
reporLed LhaL Lhey recelved more observaLlons under SLLu Lhan under Lhelr dlsLrlcL's
prlor evaluaLlon sysLem. When surveyed, 21 of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL a loL
more Llme belng observed Lhls year (under SLLu), compared Lo Lhe prlor year (under Lhe
prlor evaluaLlon sysLem), anoLher 29 reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL a blL more Llme belng
observed ln 2012-13 (fall survey, 2013). 1hus, 30 of Leachers surveyed reporLed belng
observed more under SLLu Lhan under Lhelr dlsLrlcL's prevlous sysLem (llgure 3).

12%
2u%
Su%
24%
1S%
6%
Su%
S7%
24%
S%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
8u%
1uu%
None 1 time 2 times S times Noie than S times
24
I|gure 3. 1|me Spent 8e|ng Cbserved Compared to re-SLLD (Ia|| survey 2013, 1=S33)

School AdmlnlsLraLors' vlews
ln fall 2013, we surveyed school admlnlsLraLors regardlng Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu
for Leachers. 1he sample slze was relaLlvely low (o=22), so we cauLlon readers agalnsL
puLLlng Loo much falLh ln Lhe exacL esLlmaLes presenLed here. Powever, all sLaLlsLlcs
reporLed here are conslsLenL wlLh our quallLaLlve flndlngs, whlch lncreases our
confldence ln Lhe valldlLy of Lhe survey flndlngs desplLe Lhe small sample slze.
AdmlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL evaluaLlon loads ranged wldely, from one elemenLary
school asslsLanL prlnclpal responslble for evaluaLlng slx Leachers Lo anoLher evaluaLor
wlLh a load of 36 Leachers. 1he average evaluaLlon load reporLed by surveyed
admlnlsLraLors was 23 Leachers, whlch was slLuaLed wlLhln a 93 confldence lnLerval of
beLween 19 Lo 31 Leachers. A small subseL of Lhe admlnlsLraLors we surveyed (16)
were solely responslble for all Leacher evaluaLlons wlLhln Lhelr schools, approxlmaLely
half (33) of Lhe admlnlsLraLors reporLed Lwo or Lhree evaluaLors ln Lhelr schools and a
Lhlrd (32) reporLed four or flve evaluaLors wlLhln Lhelr schools. As dlscussed below, aL
leasL Lhree schools used complemenLary observers Lo reduce admlnlsLraLors' evaluaLlon
loads.
1urnlng Lo number of observaLlons reporLed, 27 of admlnlsLraLors lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey
compleLed Lhree or more formal observaLlons per Leacher and 39 lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey
compleLed Lhree or more lnformal observaLlons per Leacher (see llgure 4). 1hese
flndlngs allgn wlLh Leacher reporLs. ApproxlmaLely a Lhlrd of admlnlsLraLors reporLed
approachlng Lhe requlred number of observaLlons expecLed ln SLLu, wlLh 37 reporLlng
S%
7%
S9%
29%
21%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
A lot less time A bit less time About the Same A bit moie time A lot moie time
Being 0bseiveu
23
Lwo formal observaLlons and 30 reporLlng Lwo lnformal observaLlons, agaln, Lhese
flndlngs allgn wlLh Leacher reporLs.
I|gure 4. D|str|but|on of Cbservat|ons keported by Adm|n|strators (1=22)

ConslsLenL wlLh Lhese sLaLlsLlcs, admlnlsLraLors reporLed spendlng conslderably more
Llme on observaLlons Lhan under prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems. SevenLy-elghL percenL of
admlnlsLraLors surveyed reporLed LhaL Lhey had spenL more Llme observlng Leachers
under SLLu Lhan under Lhelr prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems (llgure 3). Moreover, 72 of
respondenLs lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey spenL a loL more Llme wrlLlng up observaLlons Lhan Lhey
had done prevlously.

12%
2u%
Su%
24%
1S%
6%
Su%
S7%
24%
S%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
8u%
1uu%
26
I|gure S. Adm|n|strator 1|me on Cbservat|on 1asks (1=22)

ln lnLervlews, almosL all prlnclpals reporLed sLruggllng Lo compleLe Lhe requlred number
of observaLlons. rlnclpals ln many plloL slLes sLaLed LhaL Lhey devoLed subsLanLlal Llme
on a near-dally basls aLLendlng Lo observaLlons and Lhe correspondlng pre- and posL-
observaLlon conferences, and documenLlng Lhe process. ln response Lo prlnclpal
feedback, Lhree dlsLrlcLs offlclally reduced Lhe number of observaLlons LhaL Lhey
requlred prlnclpals Lo perform. rlnclpals wlLh larger evaluaLlon loads were especlally
challenged ln Lhelr efforLs Lo compleLe observaLlons. 1hls was compounded ln schools
where prlnclpals were coordlnaLlng mulLlple lnlLlaLlves ln addlLlon Lo SLLu.
ConslsLenL wlLh Lhese reporLs, aL Lhe end of Lhe school year, Leachers and leaders
reporLed an lncreased frequency of observaLlons as leaders aLLempLed Lo compleLe Lhe
prescrlbed number of observaLlons. Some Leachers reporLed recelvlng Lwo Lo Lhree
observaLlons ln Lhe lasL 3-4 weeks of school. Asked ln laLe May lf he had compleLed Lhe
requlred number of observaLlons, one prlnclpal sald, noL as many as l'd llke. lL's a one-
man show here." AnoLher elemenLary prlnclpal responded: for Lhe mosL parL."
Some dlsLrlcLs broughL ln addlLlonal observers Lo help prlnclpals compleLe Lhem.
AdmlnlsLraLors ln several schools, locaLed ln 8rldgeporL, C8LC, and Wlndham, reporLed
uslng complemenLary evaluaLors ln addlLlon Lo evaluaLors ln LradlLlonal school
leadershlp roles. 1he slLes ln C8LC and Wlndham used masLer Leachers as peer
observers and Lhe 8rldgeporL slLe used cenLral offlce admlnlsLraLors, coaches, and lead
Leachers as complemenLary evaluaLors.
Wlndham also drew on dlsLrlcL-level admlnlsLraLors, parLlcularly ln schools wlLh few
admlnlsLraLors. Cne prlnclpal sald Lhls had anclllary beneflLs: lL saved me Llme and
6% 6%
11%
17%
61%
u%
6%
24%
41%
29%
11% 11%
6%
u%
72%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
0bseiving Teacheis Talking with Teacheis Post-0bseivation
Wiiting 0p 0bseivations
27
helped me callbraLe" and argued, l llke Lhe ldea of Lhe complemenLary evaluaLors--lL
works."
Several elemenLary prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey had compleLed Lhe prescrlbed number
of observaLlons buL LhaL Lhls had greaLly lncreased Lhelr workload. 1hey reporLed LhaL
Lhey were worklng 7-day weeks Lo compleLe Lhelr observaLlons, whereas ln prevlous
years Lhey could compleLe Lhelr work ln 3-6 days per week.
Cn Lhe whole, Lhese daLa suggesL LhaL Lhe prescrlbed Lhree formal and Lhree lnformal
observaLlons are hard Lo enacL ln a basellne year where every educaLor ls evaluaLed.
1wo of each Lype of observaLlon (four LoLal) seems more aLLalnable. 8equlrlng a
mlnlmum of Lwo Lypes of each observaLlon would encourage admlnlsLraLors Lo conducL
regular observaLlons whlle also proLecLlng Llme so LhaL Lhey can maxlmlze Lhe value of
each observaLlon. 1he Core 8equlremenLs also allow for dlfferenLlaLlon on Lhe number
of observaLlons based on Leacher experlence, prlor raLlngs, and needs and goals. SLLu
also affords admlnlsLraLors some dlscreLlon on Lhls fronL.
5--4:)&; )14 </12-%#)$"/1# %-,)$-4 $/ 9:#-%2)$"/1#
ln our vlew, Lhe mosL powerful aspecL of Lhe SLLu model ls lLs poLenLlal Lo lmprove
pracLlce Lhrough evldence-based conversaLlons beLween leaders and Leachers abouL
Leachers' pracLlce. SevenLy-Lhree percenL of Leachers surveyed reporLed LhaL Lhey had
had Lwo or more posL-observaLlon feedback sesslons (llgure 6). Seven percenL sald LhaL
Lhey had no such sesslons.
I|gure 6. Irequency of ost-Cbservat|on Conferences (fa|| survey 2013, 1=S33)

7%
21%
SS%
19% 19%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
8u%
1uu%
None 1 time 2 times S times Noie than S
times
28
More Lhan a Lhlrd (37) of Leachers surveyed ln fall 2013 reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL more
Llme ln posL-observaLlon conferences Lhan Lhey had ln prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems (see
llgure 7). 1he plurallLy (48) reporLed LhaL Lhe Llme spenL ln Lhls acLlvlLy was slmllar Lo
LhaL ln Lhe pasL.
I|gure 7: 1|me Spent In ost-Cbservat|on Conferences (Ia|| Survey 2013, 1=S33)

As noLed above, 70 of admlnlsLraLors reporLed spendlng more Llme ln posL-
observaLlon conferences wlLh Leachers Lhan ln years prlor Lo SLLu's lmplemenLaLlon.
1he dlscrepancy beLween Leachers and admlnlsLraLors regardlng wheLher Lhey had
spenL more Llme ln posL-observaLlon conferences llkely reflecLs Lhe dlfferenL
experlences of Lhese dlfferenL educaLors. ln prlor years, Lenured Leachers were noL
evaluaLed annually. under SLLu, admlnlsLraLors needed Lo observe and conference wlLh
all Leachers, whlch would generally resulL ln an lncrease ln overall Llme spenL ln
conferences compared Lo prlor years. 1eachers may have lnLerpreLed Lhls quesLlon Lo
mean compoteJ to tbe yeots lo wblcb tbey ooJetweot obsetvotloo, Lhe Llme spenL ln
posL-observaLlon conferences, aL an lndlvldual level, mlghL Lhus be hlgher for a lower
proporLlon of Leachers Lhan admlnlsLraLors.
AlLhough conferences were generally occurrlng and a slzeable mlnorlLy of Leachers and
admlnlsLraLors spenL more Llme ln conferences Lhan under prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems,
lnLervlews wlLh prlnclpals and Leachers suggesLed LhaL such meeLlngs could be more
subsLanLlve and meanlngful. 1hls comes as llLLle surprlse, glven LhaL Lhls was a plloL year
ln whlch admlnlsLraLors were geLLlng used Lo Lhe sysLem and focused on execuLlng lLs
parLs. lor example, prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey had prlorlLlzed conducLlng
observaLlons over compleLlng posL-observaLlon conferences. 1hey sald LhaL someLlmes
Lhey were unable Lo hold Lhese meeLlngs or, lf Lhey meL wlLh Leachers, Lo make Lhese
9%
7%
48%
22%
1S%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Talking with Evaluatoi Aftei 0bseivations
29
meeLlngs as robusL as Lhey would have wanLed. Moreover, Leachers were asked lf Lhey
were recelvlng and uslng feedback ln a varleLy of ways.
Cverall, almosL half (43) of Lhe Leachers surveyed agreed or sLrongly agreed
LhaL Lhey were recelvlng and uslng feedback under SLLu (sprlng survey, 2013)
SlgnlflcanLly fewer Lenured Leachers reporLed recelvlng and uslng feedback Lhan
non-Lenured Leachers, wlLh t(339) = 6.16, p < .001. Cnly 33 of Lenured Leachers
agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhey were recelvlng and uslng feedback vla SLLu,
compared wlLh 60 of non-Lenured Leachers (sprlng survey, 2013)

1he dlfference beLween Lenured and non-Lenured Leachers' responses was ofLen an
arLlfacL of school leaders prlorlLlzlng observaLlons and posL-observaLlon conferences
wlLh non-Lenured Leachers. Leaders reporLed LhaL Lhey felL LhaL non-Lenured Leachers
needed more asslsLance and feedback.
Cur lnLervlews wlLh Leachers and leaders suggesLed LhaL debrleflng conversaLlons were
ofLen laLe and relaLlvely brlef (abouL 13-23 mlnuLes long). Some debrlef conversaLlons"
were conducLed Lhrough My leotoloq lloo or vla emall. ln one school, no debrlef
conversaLlons were reporLed. ln oLhers, Lhe quallLy of debrlefs varled across mulLlple
evaluaLors wlLhln Lhe same school.
rlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey had made adapLaLlons Lo SLLu regardlng Lhe posL-
observaLlon conference. Sald one hlgh school prlnclpal: lL's easy Lo geL ln [Lo classes].
1he hard plece ls Lo schedule Lhe pre and posL conference." 1he prlnclpal furLher
explalned LhaL hls sLraLegy for posL-observaLlon conferences had become Lo mosLly
caLch Leachers," bump lnLo Lhem." Some prlnclpals sLopped dolng conferences wlLh
veLerans whose observaLlons lndlcaLed Lhey were dolng well and chose Lo spend Lhelr
Llme lnsLead wlLh sLruggllng veLerans and more [unlor Leachers wlLh more areas Lo
lmprove. Some prlnclpals held summaLlve meeLlngs ln a group wlLh Leachers. Cne
prlnclpal observed LhaL lL has been a schedullng nlghLmare Lo geL lL all done." AnoLher
prlnclpal wlshed LhaL speclflc (and slngle) domalns wlLhln Lhe rubrlc could be LargeLed
durlng observaLlons wlLh early career Leachers, Lhus affordlng Lhe opporLunlLy Lo
achleve greaLer depLh ln one area of lmprovemenL raLher Lhan spread feedback over a
wlde array of domalns, poLenLlally dlluLlng lLs lmpacL. lL ls worLh noLlng LhaL several
prlnclpals who were new Lo Lhelr bulldlng reporLed uslng Lhe pre- and posL-conferences
as a way Lo geL Lo know Lhelr faculLy.
Mld-year Check-lns
We also gaLhered daLa speclflcally focused on mld-year check-lns. All dlsLrlcLs enacLed
mld-year check-lns ln Lhe conLexL of SLLu. ln Lhe fall 2013 survey, Lhe vasL ma[orlLy--
86--of Leachers lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey had had a mld-year conference. Powever, 14 of
Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey had noL had Lhese meeLlngs, and lnLervlew daLa revealed
LhaL some mld-year check-lns happened qulLe laLe, ln March or Aprll.

30
8egardlng Lhe subsLance of mld-year check-lns, Leachers reporLed LhaL mld-year check-
lns were generally brlef dlscusslons LhaL dld noL delve deeply lnLo Leachers' lnsLrucLlonal
pracLlce. Accordlng Lo Leachers, mosL mld-year check-lns lasLed 13-20 mlnuLes. Many
Leachers were noL aware LhaL Lhey could change Lhelr SLCs lf revlslons were [usLlfled
and agreed Lo by Lhelr evaluaLor. 1eachers ln only four schools ouL of Lhe enLlre sample
reporLed LhaL Lhey had alLered Lhelr goals ln Lhese meeLlngs.
All prlnclpals lnLervlewed or surveyed reporLed LhaL Lhey had held mld-year check-lns.
When asked whaL consLralned Lhese opporLunlLles, prlnclpals noLed Lhe hlgh number of
observaLlons, pre-conferences, and posL-conferences requlred by SLLu. rlnclpals
reporLed LhaL Lhey had conducLed some mld-year check-lns over e-mall because of Lhe
sheer number of meeLlngs Lhey needed Lo hold.
SummaLlve Conferences
ln our flnal round of daLa collecLlon we asked Leachers and school leaders abouL
summaLlve conferences. ln Lhe fall 2013 survey, 89 of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey had
had a summaLlve conference wlLh Lhelr evaluaLor for Lhe prevlous school year, whlle
11 lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey had noL had Lhls meeLlng. A small percenLage--4 of Leachers
(o=21)--lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey had had nelLher a mld-year conference nor a summaLlve
conference. 1hese Leachers many have been evaluaLed under Lhelr dlsLrlcL's former
evaluaLlon sysLem. Some prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey were uslng Lhelr dlsLrlcL's pre-
exlsLlng evaluaLlon sysLems for Leachers ln need of asslsLance. 1hey and Lhelr
supervlsors feared LhaL because SLLu was ln plloL sLaLus, any resulLs based on Lhe plloL
year of SLLu would noL wlLhsLand legal scruLlny.
Moreover, ln fall 2013 surveys, 90 of admlnlsLraLors lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey conducLed
summaLlve conferences wlLh all Leachers asslgned Lo Lhem, buL 10 lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey
dld noL. AbouL Lwo Lhlrds (63) of admlnlsLraLors began holdlng summaLlve conferences
ln May, 74 of admlnlsLraLors held summaLlve conferences ln !une. A subseL of
admlnlsLraLors (16) dld noL hold summaLlve conferences before Lhe 2012-13 school
year ended, 11 held Lhem over Lhe summer and anoLher 3 held Lhem ln SepLember
afLer Lhe new school year began.
7/), (-$$"1=
1hrough all Lhree rounds of our daLa collecLlon, parLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL goal seLLlng
[esLabllshlng SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlves (SLCs) and lndlcaLors of Academlc CrowLh and
uevelopmenL (lACus)] consumed a subsLanLlal porLlon of Lhelr Llme. 1hese goal-seLLlng
acLlvlLles caused conslderable sLress for educaLors ln Lhe fall, wlLh many reporLlng LhaL
Lhey recelved lnsufflclenL guldance ln how Lo wrlLe approprlaLe SLCs and lACus. 8y
sprlng 2013, Leachers reporLed less anxleLy abouL Lhls componenL of SLLu.
MosL Leachers reporLed spendlng more Llme seLLlng goals for Lhemselves as parL of Lhe
SLLu process Lhan Lhey dld under prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems. AlmosL half (44) of
Leachers surveyed ln fall 2013, reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL a loL more Llme" on goal
31
seLLlng Lhan ln prevlous years (see llgure 8). ln all, 74 of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey
spenL more Llme on Lhese acLlvlLles Lhan ln Lhe pasL and essenLlally no Leachers
reporLed spendlng less Llme.
I|gure 8. 1|me Spent on Goa| Sett|ng (Ia|| 2013 survey, 1=S33)

Accordlng Lo SLLu, goals musL be rlgorous" and aLLalnable." 1he ma[orlLy of Leachers
(39) reporLed LhaL Lhelr SLCs were boLh rlgorous and aLLalnable. Moreover, less Lhan
half of Lhe 44 of Leachers who reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL a loL" more Llme on goal
seLLlng ln 2012-13 reporLed LhaL Llme spenL on goal seLLlng was very valuable. 1hese
flndlngs may be due Lo Lhe facL LhaL Leachers and speclallsLs reporLed LhaL Lhey recelved
mlnlmal Lralnlng or lnformaLlon abouL SLCs as Lhey developed Lhem and Lhus spenL
much of Lhe fall Lrylng Lo flgure ouL Lhe process. As a resulL, many Leachers and
speclallsLs reporLed a lack of clarlLy or confuslon abouL SLCs. key confuslons lncluded
Lhe followlng:
- WhaL makes for a sLrong SLC? WhaL does a sLrong SLC look llke across dlfferenL
sub[ecL areas and grades? WhaL ls amblLlous buL aLLalnable"?
- WhaL are sLandardlzed and non-sLandardlzed measures ln dlfferenL sub[ecL areas and
grades?
- WhaL percenLage of sLudenLs should SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlves/lndlcaLors of
Academlc CrowLh and uevelopmenL cover?
- WhaL consLlLuLes a good professlonal pracLlce goal?
- ln mlddle and hlgh schools, should Leachers have SLCs and lACus for each class Lhey
Leach, overarchlng goals for all classes, or LargeL a subseL of Lhelr classes?
- When ls lL approprlaLe Lo change SLCs and lACus before Lhe end of Lhe school year?

u%
1%
2S%
Su%
44%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
uoal Setting
32
ln Lhe flrsL round of daLa collecLlon, Leachers and speclallsLs reporLed havlng greaL
dlfflculLy undersLandlng whaL consLlLuLed an accepLable SLC. ln some cases, Leachers or
speclallsLs worked LogeLher Lo crafL an SLC. ln a number of cases, Lhey employed
dlfferenL sLraLegles Lo compleLe Lhls Lask buL dld noL engage ln Lhe goal-seLLlng process
as Lhe model envlslons. lor example, Lhe lack of clarlLy on SLCs frusLraLed Leachers such
LhaL one reporLed saylng Lo her admlnlsLraLor: [usL Lell me whaL Lo wrlLe." 1hls
senLlmenL of compllance was echoed across mulLlple focus groups ln Lhe flrsL round of
daLa collecLlon. 1eachers aL anoLher school shared LhaL Lhey copled Lhe sLaLe model SLC
and changed Lhe numbers Lo flL Lhelr classroom slLuaLlon. Several groups of Leachers
reporLed flndlng colleagues who undersLood SLCs and asklng Lhese colleagues Lo wrlLe
Lhelr SLCs. llnally, several groups of Leachers reporLed LhaL a Lralner baslcally wroLe all
our SLCs."
Many educaLors reporLed sLruggllng ln parLlcular Lo flnd good assessmenLs on whlch Lo
base lACus. 1hls was compllcaLed by Lhe move Lowards lmplemenLlng Common Core
SLaLe SLandards and accompanylng assessmenLs ln 2012-13. lor example, a good
number of Leachers reporLed noL havlng sufflclenL formaLlve assessmenLs ln place and,
as a resulL, some Leachers dld noL glve a pre-LesL. CLher schools sLarLed uslng new
assessmenLs mld-year and Leachers developed SLCs and lACus based on assessmenLs
LhaL Lhey had noL yeL seen. We anLlclpaLe Lhese problems wlll decllne as dlsLrlcLs
develop assessmenLs and Lhe sLaLe provldes much more guldance on goal seLLlng.
Powever, lL ls clear LhaL SLLu requlres relaLlvely sophlsLlcaLed assessmenL llLeracy and lL
ls unclear wheLher educaLors possess Lhls knowledge or LhaL dlsLrlcLs have plans or Lhe
capaclLy Lo help educaLors develop lL.
uurlng Lhe lasL round of daLa collecLlon, parLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL SLudenL Learnlng
Cb[ecLlves remalned somewhaL amblguous even aL Lhe end of Lhe plloL year. An lnLerlm
prlnclpal who had noL been presenL ln Lhe school when SLCs were seL ln Lhe fall
observed LhaL Leachers were confused, goals were arblLrary, some were Loo amblLlous."
Pe added LhaL Leachers were used Lo almlng hlgh wlLh few consequences lf Lhey came
up shorL. Cf Lhe overly amblLlous goals, he sald, We Lrled Lo change some of Lhese mld-
year."
AnoLher elemenLary prlnclpal suggesLed LhaL Lhere were sysLemaLlc dlfferences ln rlgor
of SLCs wlLhln her school. She observed LhaL Leachers of Lhe LesLed grades were less
llkely Lo achleve Lhelr goals Lhan Leachers of k-2 ln her school. ln her oplnlon, Lhls was
because Lhe sLakes were hlgher ln Lhe upper grades and goals depended on sLudenLs
havlng masLered skllls prlor Lo Lhelr grade. ln Lhe upper grades, Lhere ls a longer hlsLory
of learnlng or noL learnlng," she sLaLed. AnoLher facLor was Lhe evaluaLor. She had
overseen SLC creaLlon for grades 3-3 buL her asslsLanL had managed k-2. ln grades 3-3
some Leachers puL 100 for Lhelr goals and l leL Lhem do LhaL whereas ln k-2 Lhe
asslsLanL prlnclpal sald she advlsed agalnsL LhaL." WlLh Lhe exLremely hlgh goal of 100
of sLudenLs reachlng a benchmark, many Leachers ln grades 3-3 falled Lo achleve Lhelr
goals.
33
ln some lnsLances, SLCs were lmplemenLed ln ways LhaL were dlrecLly conLrary Lo Lhe
SLLu model. lor example, a very small mlnorlLy of Leachers was forced Lo adopL
SLCs/lACus esLabllshed by prlnclpals. CLher Leachers were Lold Lhey could noL change
Lhelr goals aL Lhe mld-year conference. CLher Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhelr lACus dld noL
measure growLh, slnce Lhere was no pre-LesL. LasLly, some Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey
were uslng school wlde measures for Lhelr SLCs/lACus. 1eachers and prlnclpals were
uncerLaln abouL when Lhls was approprlaLe and when lL was noL (e.g., an arL Leacher
measured on LLA CA1, a muslc Leacher wlLh a CM1 wrlLlng goal, a maLh Leacher wlLh a
school wlde LLA goal).
We belleve Lhe confuslon wlLh respecL Lo goal seLLlng were ln parL a resulL of Lhe rushed
lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe plloL and Lhe lack of proper guldance LhaL ensued. ln addlLlon,
and noL surprlslngly, Lhere appears Lo be a relaLlonshlp beLween sklll level of
admlnlsLraLors and quallLy of Lhe process.
uaLa use
SLLu has Lhe poLenLlal Lo lncrease educaLors' use of sLudenL daLa. LducaLors are asked
Lo seL and monlLor goals based on sLudenL daLa. Clven LhaL a subsLanLlal porLlon of Lhelr
evaluaLlon ls based on wheLher or noL Lhelr sLudenLs achleve Lhe goals Lhey seL,
educaLors are llkely Lo pay close aLLenLlon Lo Lhelr sLudenLs' performance LhroughouL
Lhe year. ConslsLenL wlLh Lhls assumpLlon, we found LhaL Leachers reporLed a subsLanLlal
lncrease ln Lhelr analysls of daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs. Speclflcally, 64 of Leachers
surveyed ln fall 2013, reporLed LhaL Lhey spenL more Llme analyzlng sLudenL daLa ln
2012-13 Lhan ln prevlous years. 1wo-Lhlrds of Leachers surveyed (67) reporLed
spendlng more Llme gaLherlng daLa Lo assess Lhelr own progress Lhan ln prevlous years
(llgure 9). lL appears LhaL SLLu ls spurrlng Leachers Lo spend more Llme gaLherlng and
examlnlng daLa. SLLu has lncreased Leachers' conslderaLlon of and use of sLudenL daLa,
key precursors Lo lnsLrucLlonal change. 1hls lncreased daLa use ls clearly a poslLlve effecL
of SLLu and one worLh bulldlng upon ln fuLure years of Lhe sysLem. ln parLlcular, lL wlll
be lmporLanL Lo assess and supporL Lhe quallLy of Lhls addlLlonal Llme lnvesLed ln
gaLherlng and analyzlng sLudenL daLa.

34
I|gure 9: 1eachers' Data Use W|th|n SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=S33)

>%/?-##"/1), @-)%1"1= 9++/%$61"$"-#
Accordlng Lo Lhe SLLu model, Leachers' summaLlve conferences should culmlnaLe wlLh a
raLlng and recommendaLlons for professlonal learnlng Lo address weaknesses ldenLlfled
Lhrough Lhe evaluaLlon process. very few parLlclpanLs reporLed Lhe presence of
professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles llnked Lo evaluaLlon ouLcomes. AlmosL no Leachers
reporLed LhaL Lhey had recelved speclflc recommendaLlons of professlonal growLh
opporLunlLles ln such debrlef slLuaLlons. AlmosL all Leachers reporLed LhaL leaders dld
noL make suggesLlons of professlonal developmenL LhaL Lhey should pursue glven Lhelr
progress as lndlcaLed by classroom observaLlons and sLudenL daLa. 1hls was Lrue even ln
schools LhaL lmplemenLed SLLu relaLlvely robusLly.
AlLhough Lhls ls a key parL of Lhe Lheory of acLlon underglrdlng SLLu, plloL dlsLrlcLs were
noL able Lo develop lndlvlduallzed professlonal developmenL for lmplemenLaLlon durlng
Lhe plloL year. ln some cases, Lhls was due Lo Lhe facL LhaL professlonal developmenL
was orchesLraLed aL Lhe dlsLrlcL level. ulsLrlcL leaders reporLed LhaL Lhere were few
resources Lo devoLe Lo Lhls componenL of SLLu. ln oLher cases, lL appeared LhaL Lhe
focus on oLher aspecLs of SLLu (observaLlons, deslgnlng Lhe SLCs) overshadowed Lhe
developmenL of professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles LhaL could be LargeLed Lo lndlvldual
Leachers' needs. ulsLrlcLs focused on carrylng ouL Lhe oLher aspecLs of SLLu, namely Lhe
goal seLLlng and monlLorlng and Lhe classroom observaLlon elemenL, and Lhe
professlonal learnlng componenL generally recelved very llLLle aLLenLlon.
We see Lhls lack of aLLenLlon Lo Lhe lasL porLlon of SLLu-professlonal learnlng
opporLunlLles--as predlcLable glven LhaL Lhls was Lhe plloL year of Lhe program and
1%
2%
S4%
Su%
S4%
1%
S%
29%
S1%
S6%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Analyzing Bata about Stuuents Collecting Eviuence foi Self-Assessment
33
dlsLrlcLs and schools puL a greaL deal of efforL lnLo lmplemenLlng all aspecLs on Lhe
prescrlbed Llmellne. We vlew Lhe professlonal learnlng componenL of SLLu as havlng
greaL poLenLlal Lo alLer pracLlce, however, and belleve Lhls aspecL of Lhe model should
be closely examlned and supporLed ln fuLure years.
A44"$"/1), B-)#6%-#
SLLu also calls for Leachers Lo be assessed based on parenL feedback and whole-school
measures of sLudenL learnlng or sLudenL feedback. We found LhaL dlsLrlcLs generally dld
noL allocaLe resources Lowards developlng lnsLrumenLs wlLh whlch Lo gaLher feedback
from parenLs or sLudenLs. ulsLrlcLs cobbled LogeLher measures of parenL feedback. MosL
dlsLrlcLs opLed Lo lnclude school-wlde measures of sLudenL learnlng lnsLead of sLudenL
feedback. Agaln, we found LhaL Lhese componenLs of SLLu were overshadowed by
dlsLrlcLs' emphases on SLCs and observaLlon. We belleve Lhese componenLs of SLLu are
vlLally lmporLanL and should be sLrengLhened ln fuLure years.
Schoo| Adm|n|strator Lva|uat|on
Cverall, we found LhaL dlsLrlcLs had lmplemenLed school admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon ln
2012-13. Powever, because of Lhe emphasls on Leacher evaluaLlon, school
admlnlsLraLors reporLed llmlLed experlence wlLh admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon. Cne asslsLanL
superlnLendenL sald LhaL admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon had gone noL as well as l would have
llked. 1eacher evaluaLlon was Lhe prlorlLy."
AlLhough all dlsLrlcLs lmplemenLed Lhe componenLs of admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon, Lhey
began Lo lmplemenL Lhe SLLu admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon qulLe laLe (l.e., uecember-
!anuary). Some prlnclpals recelved more observaLlon and feedback from Lhelr
evaluaLors Lhan oLhers. veLeran prlnclpals and asslsLanL prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey
had noL lnLeracLed much wlLh Lhls evaluaLlon sysLem durlng Lhelr plloL. l dldn'L pay
aLLenLlon Lo lL, Lo Lell you Lhe LruLh," sald one hlgh school asslsLanL prlnclpal.
ln fall 2013, we surveyed school admlnlsLraLors on Lhelr experlences wlLh SLLu's
admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon. AlmosL half of Lhe admlnlsLraLors surveyed (47) agreed or
sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhey recelved feedback abouL how Lo lmprove Lhelr leadershlp
pracLlce. A smaller subseL (36) lndlcaLed LhaL Lhelr evaluaLor(s) had Lhe Llme and
resources Lo evaluaLe Lhem accuraLely (see 1able 10).

36
1ab|e 10. Adm|n|strator ercept|ons of SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=22)

SLrongly
ulsagreed ulsagreed neuLral Agreed
SLrongly
Agreed
l tecelveJ feeJbock ftom my
evolootot(s) oboot bow to
lmptove my leoJetsblp ptoctlce.
18 0 33 29 18
My evolootot(s) boJ tbe tlme ooJ
tesootces to evoloote me
occototely occotJloq to tbe 5u
moJel.
18 18 29 24 12

AdmlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon was lmplemenLed ln a llmlLed fashlon for a varleLy of reasons.
1hese lncluded a lack of professlonal developmenL and conslderable Llme and energy
focused on Leacher evaluaLlon. rlnclpals asked for addlLlonal Lralnlng, clLlng LhaL Lhey
had had only Lwo overvlews of Lhe admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon. AlLhough Lhe ma[orlLy of
dlsLrlcLs lmplemenLed SLLu for admlnlsLraLors, Lhey dld so on a compressed Llmellne.
Mld-year conferences ln some dlsLrlcLs were held ln May.
lor example, one dlsLrlcL had no mld-year check-lns for prlnclpals. rlnclpals generally
reporLed belng observed once or Lwlce, buL some were observed dolng Lhlngs LhaL were
noL cenLral Lo Lhelr work as lnsLrucLlonal leaders. 1hey reporLed LhaL Lhey dld noL geL
feedback based on Lhese observaLlons.
AlLhough admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon was lmplemenLed llghLly, parLlclpanLs reporLed some
beneflLs from lL. Cne asslsLanL superlnLendenL commenLed LhaL, we've really had
subsLanLlve conversaLlons [abouL admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon] due Lo SLLu's pressure." She
furLher noLed LhaL prlnclpals were recepLlve Lo raLlngs" from SLLu and harder on
Lhemselves Lhan we [dlsLrlcL admlnlsLraLors] are."
Var|at|ons |n Imp|ementat|on
Clven LhaL lmplemenLaLlon Lends Lo vary by seLLlng and parLlclpanL, lL was lmporLanL for
us Lo examlne wheLher Lhls was Lhe case ln SLLu's enacLmenL. We found varlaLlon ln
lmplemenLaLlon aL several levels. llrsL, we found varlaLlon ln lmplemenLaLlon over Llme,
wlLh sLronger lmplemenLaLlon laLer ln Lhe plloL year. Second, we found varlaLlon by slLe,
wlLh sLronger lmplemenLaLlon aL Lhe elemenLary level and ln dlsLrlcLs wlLh leaders who
supporLed Lhe SLLu model and had prlorlLlzed evaluaLlon ln recenL years. 1hlrd, we
found sLronger lmplemenLaLlon wlLh non-Lenured Leachers as compared Lo Lenured
Leachers. llnally, we found weaker lmplemenLaLlon ln dlsLrlcLs faclng challenges, such as
low performance and mulLlple concurrenL lnlLlaLlves, Lhan ln dlsLrlcLs where educaLors
dld noL have Lo dlvlde Lhelr aLLenLlon as much.

37
varlaLlon Cver 1lme
As of our flrsL round of daLa collecLlon, ln CcLober-!anuary, 2012, we found LhaL SLLu
had been lmplemenLed only parLlally. uue Lo Lhe hurrled roll-ouL of SLLu and
subsLanLlal work lnvolved wlLh seLLlng SLCs and lACus, dlsLrlcLs had lmplemenLed only
porLlons of Lhe SLLu model as of laLe 2012. WlLh a few excepLlons, mosL dlsLrlcLs
delayed Lhe launch of SLLu for admlnlsLraLors unLll uecember or laLer. Moreover, many
admlnlsLraLors dld noL begln Lo conducL classroom observaLlons under SLLu unLll
november-uecember. 1hls sLems from lack of Llme. noL only were admlnlsLraLors
spendlng subsLanLlal Llme ln goal seLLlng wlLh Leachers, Lhey reporLed LhaL Lhey were
also requlred Lo pass a 1eocbscope rellablllLy examlnaLlon prlor Lo observlng Leachers.
AdmlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL preparlng for and compleLlng Lhls examlnaLlon Look more
Lhan a day's Llme, whlch admlnlsLraLors found challenglng Lo capLure. lndeed, ln Lhe fall
of 2012, 43 of Lhe prlnclpals lnLervlewed expressed sLrong concerns abouL Lhe
1eocbscope assessmenL, noLlng Lhe amounL of Llme requlred Lo prepare and Lake Lhe
LesL, Lhe absence of feedback from Lhe resulLs, and low quallLy vldeos.
ln fall 2012, parLlclpanLs also expressed sLrong concerns abouL Lhe lack of
communlcaLlon and opporLunlLles Lo learn abouL SLLu. AlmosL all classroom Leachers
and speclallsLs we lnLervlewed reporLed LhaL Lhey lacked clarlLy abouL key aspecLs of
SLLu. arLlclpanLs, parLlcularly Leachers, reporLed ln Lhe flrsL round of daLa collecLlon
(fall, 2012) LhaL Lhey had noL recelved enough Lralnlng regardlng SLLu's componenLs
and, ln parLlcular, SLCs. Classroom Leachers ln many dlsLrlcLs reporLed LhaL Lhey had
recelved only Lwo Lralnlng sesslons of beLween one and Lwo hours each. AddlLlonally,
Leachers ln several dlsLrlcLs reporLed LhaL Lralnlng was delayed, Lralners were noL able Lo
answer Lhelr quesLlons, or Lralnlng was noL conduclve Lo Leacher learnlng because lL
relled Loo much on lecLure formaL and offered llLLle or no follow-up. Classroom Leachers
and speclallsLs lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe greaL ma[orlLy of Lralnlng Lhey recelved was provlded
by Lhelr prlnclpal. rlnclpals reporLed recelvlng more Lralnlng Lhan Leachers, ln some
cases aLLendlng Lhree or four-day Lralnlng sesslons ln Lhe summer or early fall. newly
hlred prlnclpals, however, someLlmes mlssed Lhls Lralnlng, puLLlng Lhem aL an lnlLlal
dlsadvanLage ln undersLandlng Lhe model and lmplemenLlng lL wlLh fldellLy.
1eacher and speclallsL parLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL Lhey were provlded wlLh few
opporLunlLles Lo develop a deep undersLandlng of SLLu. 1eachers and speclallsLs
reporLed LhaL prlnclpals ofLen clarlfled or communlcaLed abouL SLLu vla e-mall.
rlnclpals dld noL meeL one-on-one wlLh some Leachers and speclallsLs Lo seL goals,
chooslng Lo handle Lhls process by holdlng group sesslons lnsLead. ln some cases,
Leachers percelved group goal seLLlng as poslLlve, for Lhey felL lL fosLered collaboraLlon.
ln oLher cases, Leachers percelved Lhls as negaLlve, Lhey felL lL forced unlformlLy of goals
when Lhelr dlverse classrooms warranLed more varled SLCs and lACus. MosL Leachers
and speclallsLs reporLed LhaL Lhey wanLed more coachlng on whaL SLLu demanded of
Lhem and how Lo creaLe an SLC.

38
ln Lhe second and Lhlrd rounds of daLa collecLlon, parLlclpanLs reporLed lncreased clarlLy
and decreased sLress relaLed Lo SLLu. 1hls appeared Lo be due, ln parL, Lo lmproved
communlcaLlon from dlsLrlcLs and Lhe sLaLe, buL also Lo greaLer famlllarlLy wlLh Lhe SLLu
pollcy and procedures, as well as decreased emphasls on SLLu ln some slLes afLer Lhe
lnlLlal goal seLLlng phase ln Lhe fall. arLlclpanLs also developed a beLLer undersLandlng
of Lhe SLLu model Lhrough Lhe process of lmplemenLlng lL. AnecdoLal evldence from
plloL dlsLrlcLs suggesLs LhaL Lhelr second year of SLLu lmplemenLaLlon (2012-13) ls
proceedlng more smooLhly Lhan Lhe plloL year.
varlaLlons across Crade Levels
A one-way analysls of varlance (AnCvA) was used Lo LesL wheLher Leachers aL dlfferenL
grade levels reporLed slmllar experlences wlLh SLLu lmplemenLaLlon. 1here were no
slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Lhe number of formal or lnformal observaLlons durlng Lhe SLLu
plloL year across grade levels, l (2, 413) = .93, p = .388, and l (2, 409) = .38, p = .682,
respecLlvely. 1eachers also dld noL reporL any sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch observaLlons and feedback occurred more frequenLly under SLLu Lhan
ln prevlous years, l (2, 418) = 2.40, p = .092.
1eachers reporLed slgnlflcanL dlfferences across grade levels ln Lhe number of meeLlngs
Lo dlscuss feedback abouL Lhelr observaLlons, l (2, 413) = 7.21, p = .001 (see llgure 10).
1ukey's posL-hoc comparlsons lndlcaLe LhaL mlddle school Leachers (M=1.86, 93 Cl
[1.62, 2.10]) reporLed slgnlflcanLly fewer meeLlngs Lo dlscuss feedback abouL Lhelr
observaLlons Lhan elemenLary school Leachers (M=2.37, 93 Cl [2.20, 2.34], p = .001)
and hlgh school Leachers (M=2.34, 93 Cl [2.16, 2.33], p = .004) (llgure 10).
3
1he
dlfference beLween elemenLary school Leachers' responses and hlgh school Leachers'
responses was noL sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL aL p < .03.

3
Mean scores fall on a LlkerL-Lype scale where 1=SLrongly ulsagreed and 3=SLrongly Agreed.
39
I|gure 10. Means |ot for Number of ost-Cbservat|on Meet|ngs across Grade Leve|s
(n=S33)

lorLy percenL of elemenLary school Leachers and 41 of hlgh school Leachers reporLed
Lhree or more meeLlngs wlLh Lhelr evaluaLor Lo dlscuss feedback from observaLlons, only
30 of mlddle school Leachers reporLed meeLlng Lhe number of meeLlngs
recommended ln SLLu (see llgure 11). AnoLher 37 of elemenLary school Leachers
reporLed Lwo posL-observaLlon meeLlngs, 33 of hlgh school Leachers reporLed Lwo
posL-observaLlon meeLlngs, and 30 of mlddle school Leachers reporLed Lwo posL-
observaLlon meeLlngs. 1hls lndlcaLes a 13 Lo 16 percenLage polnL dlfference ln Lhe
Leachers close Lo or fully recelvlng Lhe number of recommended posL-observaLlon
meeLlngs Lo dlscuss feedback.

2.S7
1.86
2.S4
1
2
S
4
S
Elementaiy School Teacheis Niuule School Teacheis Bigh School Teacheis
Numbei of post-obseivation meetings to uiscuss feeuback
40

I|gure 11. D|str|but|on of Meet|ngs to D|scuss Cbservat|ons by Grade Leve| (1=S33)

Cf Lhe 67 Leachers who lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey dld noL have a mld-year conference, almosL
half (43, o=30) LaughL elemenLary grades (vs. 33 of Lhe sample), 24 (o=16) LaughL
mlddle grades (vs. 19 of Lhe sample), 18 (o=12) LaughL hlgh school (vs. 27 of Lhe
sample), and 13 (o=9) decllned Lo lndlcaLe grade level. 1he dlfference across groups ls
approachlng slgnlflcanL, wlLh !
2
(2, 418) = 3.49, p = .064. 1eachers wlLhouL a summaLlve
conference were evenly dlsLrlbuLed across grade levels, wlLh 28 (o=13) Leachlng
elemenLary grades, 28 (o=13) Leachlng mlddle grades, and 30 (o=16) Leachlng hlgh
school, 13 (o=8) decllned Lo lndlcaLe a grade level. 1here ls no slgnlflcanL assoclaLlon
beLween grade level and havlng a summaLlve conference, wlLh !
2
(2, 421) = 2.76, p
= .232.
varlaLlons by 1enure SLaLus
lndependenL-samples t LesLs were used Lo LesL wheLher Lhere were dlfferences ln
Leacher experlences wlLh SLLu lmplemenLaLlon across Lenure sLaLus. 1here were no
slgnlflcanL dlfferences beLween non-Lenured and Lenured Leachers ln Lhe number of
lnformal observaLlons or Lhe number of posL-observaLlon meeLlngs Lo dlscuss feedback.
non-Lenured Leachers were more llkely Lhan Lenured Leachers Lo reporL LhaL
observaLlons and feedback occurred more frequenLly under SLLu Lhan ln prevlous years,
wlLh t (131.63)=2.37, p = .019. non-Lenured Leachers also reporLed slgnlflcanLly more
formal observaLlons Lhan Lenured Leachers, wlLh t (432) = 3.71, p < .001. llfLy-slx
percenL of non-Lenured Leachers reporLed havlng Lhree or more formal observaLlons, as
4%
19%
S7%
17%
2S%
1S%
24%
S1%
2u%
1u%
S%
21%
SS%
22%
19%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
8u%
1uu%
41
recommended by SLLu pollcy, ln conLrasL, only 20 of Lenured Leachers reporLed Lhree
or more formal observaLlons (see llgure 13). As noLed above, Lhls ls due aL leasL ln parL
Lo a consclous declslon by admlnlsLraLors Lo manage Lhelr evaluaLlon load by observlng
non-Lenured Leachers more Lhan Lenured Leachers.
I|gure 13. D|str|but|on of Iorma| Cbservat|ons by 1enure Status (1=S33)

Cf Lhe 67 Leachers who lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey dld noL have a mld-year conference, 73
(o=30) were Lenured (vs. 67 of Lhe sample), 16 (o=11) were noL Lenured (vs. 13 of
Lhe sample), and 9 (o=6) decllned Lo lndlcaLe Lenure sLaLus. Slmllarly, of Lhe 34
Leachers who lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey dld noL have a summaLlve conference Lo dlscuss Lhelr
summaLlve raLlng, 72 (o=39) were Lenured, 17 (o=9) were noL Lenured, and 11
(o=6) decllned Lo lndlcaLe Lenure sLaLus.
varlaLlons by ulsLrlcL
Wlde varlaLlons by dlsLrlcL also were apparenL. AlLhough we cauLlon readers agalnsL
drawlng flrm concluslons on Lhese sLaLlsLlcs because of Lhe small sample slze for some
dlsLrlcLs, Lhere were slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Lhe number of observaLlons Leachers ln
dlfferenL dlsLrlcLs reporLed recelvlng. lor example, Lhe percenLage of Leachers reporLlng
LhaL Lhey had recelved Lhree or more formal observaLlons ranged from 8 ln one dlsLrlcL
Lo 71 ln anoLher. Slmllarly, Lhe proporLlon of Leachers reporLlng fewer Lhan Lwo
observaLlons ranged from 7 ln one seLLlng Lo 60 ln anoLher. ln general, lower-
performlng dlsLrlcLs wlLh mulLlple lnlLlaLlves underway experlenced more dlfflculLy ln
lmplemenLlng SLLu wlLh fldellLy. ln Lhese dlsLrlcLs, Leachers were more llkely Lhan ln
4%
16%
24%
Su%
6%
S%
S4%
4u%
18%
2%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
8u%
1uu%
Non-Tenuieu Teacheis Tenuieu Teacheis
42
hlgher-performlng dlsLrlcLs Lo reporL noL havlng a mld-year conference or summaLlve
conference.
ln large parL, Lhese lmplemenLaLlon challenges were connecLed Lo Lhe large number of
concurrenL reform lnlLlaLlves occurrlng ln Lhese dlsLrlcLs. 1hese oLher lnlLlaLlves
demanded leaders' and Leachers' Llme, Lhus reduclng a key resource necessary for
lmplemenLlng SLLu.
C|os|ng kemarks
Cn Lhe whole, dlsLrlcLs and schools lmplemenLed SLLu wlLh a relaLlvely hlgh degree of
fldellLy. 1hey lnvesLed parLlcular energy ln lmplemenLlng Lhe goal seLLlng and
observaLlon componenLs of SLLu. We furLher found LhaL schools wlLh Lhe greaLesL
challenges (l.e., very low sLudenL achlevemenL and mulLlple reform lnlLlaLlves) seemed
Lo have Lhe mosL dlfflculLles ln uslng Lhe model Lo drlve lmprovemenLs ln pracLlce.
Cverall, lmplemenLaLlon proceeded much as we would expecL durlng Lhe plloL phase of
any new ma[or lnlLlaLlve.

43
I|nd|ngs on Lducator Lxper|ences

ln addlLlon Lo lmplemenLaLlon, a second area of lnLeresL Lo Lhe sLaLe was how educaLors
ln Lhe 14 dlsLrlcLs experlenced Lhe plloL lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu. 1hus, we gaLhered
daLa on Leachers' and leaders' vlews of and experlences wlLh Lhls reform. 1hls secLlon
presenLs daLa ln response Lo research quesLlons lnvesLlgaLlng Lhese areas. Speclflcally,
we presenL flndlngs ln response Lo Lhe followlng quesLlons:
LuuCA1C8 LxL8lLnCLS Wl1P SLLu:
1. Pow dld educaLors ln plloL slLes experlence SLLu?
Introduct|on
Cver Lhe course of Lhe year and Lhree rounds of daLa collecLlon, educaLors expressed a
varleLy of perspecLlves on SLLu. 1eachers ralsed concerns ln Lhe flrsL round of daLa
collecLlon, whlch were Lo be expecLed as Lhey learned abouL and lmplemenLed a new
lnlLlaLlve aL a relaLlvely fasL pace, buL over Llme Leachers expressed relaLlvely more
accepLance and less anxleLy. ulLlmaLely, educaLors ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs expressed a
poslLlve or neuLral vlew of SLLu. 8ecause of Lhe rlgors of learnlng and lmplemenLlng a
new sysLem, mosL educaLors vlewed SLLu as a sysLem focused malnly on Lhelr
evaluaLlon as opposed Lo Lhelr developmenL. Clven Lhe plloL sLaLus of Lhe lnlLlaLlve, Lhls
ls noL surprlslng.
ln Lhe followlng secLlons, we presenL educaLors' general vlews of SLLu, as reflecLed ln
lnLervlews and surveys. We Lhen dlscuss Lhelr aLLlLudes Loward componenLs of SLLu,
lncludlng observaLlons, Lhe lnsLrucLlonal pracLlce rubrlc, posL-observaLlon conferences,
and goal seLLlng (l.e., SLCs and lACus). We presenL daLa on varlaLlons ln educaLors'
aLLlLudes and Lhen Lurn Lo admlnlsLraLors' aLLlLudes Lowards Lhe admlnlsLraLor verslon
of SLLu.
Genera| V|ews of SLLD
arLlclpanLs holdlng a range of roles expressed a poslLlve or neuLral vlew of Lhe SLLu
model. very few parLlclpanLs re[ecLed Lhe enLlre model ouL of hand, even lf Lhey
crlLlqued parLs of Lhe pollcy or expressed frusLraLlon wlLh how lL was lmplemenLed
durlng Lhe plloL year.
1eocbets vlews
1eachers
4
reporLed conslderable anxleLy and confuslon regardlng SLLu ln Lhe flrsL round

4
8ecall LhaL we use Lhe Lerm Leacher" Lo encompass all personnel evaluaLed under Lhe Leacher verslon
of SLLu. SpeclallsLs are hlghllghLed by name when Lhelr vlews dlverged from Lhose of classroom Leachers.
44
of daLa collecLlon. Cver Llme, Lhese senLlmenLs dlmlnlshed, alLhough Lhey dld noL
compleLely dlsappear. ln facL, many Leachers have conslsLenLly volced supporL for Lhe
ldeas behlnd SLLu. 1eachers ln parLlcular appreclaLe Lhe facL LhaL SLLu promlses Lo
lncrease Lhe frequency of classroom observaLlons by school leaders and sLrengLhen Lhe
feedback Lhey recelve regardlng Lhelr lnsLrucLlon. 1hey belleve Lhe focus on sLudenL
performance growLh, raLher Lhan masLery, ls a poslLlve elemenL of SLLu as ls Lhe
opporLunlLy Lo ad[usL Lhelr goals mld-year. 1eachers reporLed LhaL Lhe facL LhaL
admlnlsLraLors are also evaluaLed ls a sLrong polnL of Lhe model. Many school leaders ln
plloL dlsLrlcLs emphaslzed Lo Leachers LhaL Lhelr own evaluaLlons depended upon Lhe
performance of Lhelr Leachers, and Leachers appreclaLed Lhls facL.
A conslderable number of Leachers felL LhaL SLLu has good poLenLlal. lorLy-Lwo percenL
of Leachers surveyed ln fall 2013 felL LhaL wlLh sufflclenL resources, such as Llme and
sLafflng, Lhey would be able Lo use SLLu Lo lmprove Leacher pracLlce aL Lhelr school.
Cne-Lhlrd of Leachers (34) were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon. SlxLy-one percenL of Leachers
reporLed LhaL Lhey undersLood how Lhey were evaluaLed and 78 of Leachers lndlcaLed
LhaL Lhey felL comforLable belng evaluaLed by Lhelr supervlsor ln SLLu's plloL year.
MosL prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Leacher feedback on SLLu has been poslLlve or neuLral.
Accordlng Lo surveys from fall 2013, 90 of admlnlsLraLors agreed or sLrongly agreed
LhaL Leachers undersLood how Lhey were evaluaLed under SLLu and 83 agreed or
sLrongly agreed LhaL Leachers were comforLable belng evaluaLed by Lhelr evaluaLor.
rlnclpals lndlcaLed LhaL some Leachers have expressed appreclaLlon for how SLCs have
focused Lhelr aLLenLlon on Lhe progress of all sLudenLs. Many complaln LhaL Lhe forms
used durlng Lhe plloL year were cumbersome. ln a very small number of schools
prlnclpals reporLed LhaL mosL Leachers had a negaLlve experlence wlLh SLLu. Cne
prlnclpal explalned LhaL ln hls bulldlng, some [Leachers] haLe lL" because SLLu sLarLed
ouL so roughly.lL puL a bad LasLe ln people's mouLh aL Lhe beglnnlng."
5cbool AJmlolsttotots vlews
Cverall, prlnclpals ln plloL dlsLrlcLs supporL Lhe SLLu model and embrace lLs focus on
lnsLrucLlon and lLs funcLlon as a lever for professlonal growLh. Many admlnlsLraLors noLe
LhaL SLLu's approach Lo evaluaLlon, wlLh lLs lncluslon of classroom observaLlons and
goal seLLlng, ls noL subsLanLlally dlfferenL from whaL Lhey had done ln Lhe pasL. 1hey
welcomed SLLu's focus on sLudenL performance.
A number of admlnlsLraLors expressed concern, however, abouL performance labels
(e.g., proflclenL") belng a dlsLracLlon Lo Lhe more nuanced and deLalled feedback from
an evaluaLlon. 1hey furLher argued LhaL Lhe labels may be ln confllcL wlLh Lhe noLlon of
supporL and, aL Lhe exLreme, LhreaLen Lo de-professlonallze Leachlng. 1helr greaLesL
concern, foreshadowed ln Lhe prlor secLlon, ls Lhe large quanLlLy of Lhelr Llme LhaL SLLu
demands.
43
rlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe plloL verslon of SLLu lncreased Lhelr workload subsLanLlally.
Cne prlnclpal, for example, sald she was less avallable for non-evaluaLlon maLLers Lhan
ln prevlous years. AnoLher prlnclpal observed LhaL she had less Llme Lo Lhlnk, plan, and
lnnovaLe as a leader. Several prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe amounL of requlred paperwork
reduced Lhelr Llme ln Lhe classrooms, holdlng one-on-one conferences, or parLlclpaLlng
ln Leam meeLlngs, Lhus dlmlnlshlng Lhelr lnsLrucLlonal leadershlp acLlvlLles. rlnclpals
added LhaL Lhey dld more work, ln some cases much more, afLer school and aL home
Lhan ln prevlous years. Cne prlnclpal spoke for many by saylng, 1he volume of Lhls
sysLem ls overwhelmlng. lL Look a huge chunk away from oLher duLles." Sald anoLher
prlnclpal, SLLu goL ln my way.lL's cumbersome, lL slowed me down ln compleLlng
evaluaLlon." Cne prlnclpal kepL Lrack of Lhe hours he spenL on SLLu and found LhaL, on
average, he devoLed more Lhan 60 of each day Lo evaluaLlon, whlch he felL
compromlsed hls ablllLy Lo focus on developlng Lhe school's faculLy as a whole.
rlnclpals ln low-performlng dlsLrlcLs reporLed parLlcular challenges ln lmplemenLlng
SLLu. Cne prlnclpal explalned LhaL havlng several lnlLlaLlves happenlng all aL once puLs
everyLhlng ln flux." 1hls furLher llmlLed Lhe Llme prlnclpals ln such seLLlngs could devoLe
Lo SLLu.
ln some ways, Lhe reporLed lncrease ln prlnclpals' workload ls a poslLlve flndlng, as one
goal of SLLu was Lo lncrease prlnclpals' aLLenLlon Lo and work on lnsLrucLlonal
leadershlp. As dlscussed below, lL ls clear LhaL SLLu caused admlnlsLraLors Lo spend
more Llme ln classrooms observlng Leachers. 1hls ls a beneflL of SLLu LhaL should be
culLlvaLed. lrom anoLher perspecLlve, Lhls flndlng ls cause for concern, lf prlnclpals feel
overwhelmed, Lhe quallLy of Lhelr work-wheLher ln Lhe area of lnsLrucLlonal leadershlp
or ouLslde lL--may suffer. lL ls clear LhaL SLLu changes admlnlsLraLors' [obs, someLlmes
subsLanLlally. 1he sLaLe and dlsLrlcLs should help school admlnlsLraLors manage Lhelr
workloads ln ways LhaL promoLe school and, ulLlmaLely, sLudenL success.
rlnclpals also ouLllned several ways ln whlch SLLu was beneflclal Lo Lhelr leadershlp.
Speclflcally, mosL prlnclpals ldenLlfled Lhe rubrlc and summaLlve meeLlngs as parLlcularly
poslLlve aspecLs of SLLu. 1hese are dlscussed ln more deLall below. A few prlnclpals
reporLed LhaL SLLu's admlnlsLraLor evaluaLlon plece was poslLlve. ln general, prlnclpals
called for more professlonal developmenL and Llme Lo learn how Lo use SLLu ln ways
LhaL maxlmlze lLs beneflLs. As one prlnclpal sald, SLLu has a loL of plusses. Make sure
everyone has Llme Lo learn lL and use lL."
ulsttlct AJmlolsttotots

1he ma[orlLy of dlsLrlcL leaders reporLed LhaL SLLu had been a poslLlve experlence for
educaLors ln Lhelr dlsLrlcL and were cauLlously opLlmlsLlc abouL Lhe new model. uesplLe
angsL" over goal seLLlng, one dlsLrlcL leader sald, SLLu has been largely poslLlve." She
added, we haven'L heard a Lon" of feedback from Leachers regardlng Lhe rubrlc or
summaLlve meeLlngs.

46
ln conLrasL, anoLher dlsLrlcL leader reporLed LhaL Lhere was a greaL deal of Lenslon
(parLlcularly around goal seLLlng) and low morale ln hls dlsLrlcL LhaL Leachers have
aLLrlbuLed ln parL Lo Lhe SLLu plloL. MulLlple dlsLrlcL leaders reporLed LhaL educaLors ln
Lhelr dlsLrlcL had negaLlve experlences wlLh My leotoloq lloo. Cne dlsLrlcL leader
reporLed LhaL Leachers found LhaL My leotoloq lloo ls a paln," even Lhough Lhey
supporLed SLLu more broadly.

Cne dlsLrlcL leader ldenLlfled Lhe nexL level of work for SLLu wlLhln her dlsLrlcL:
Lveryone ls sLuck on Lhe daLa Lhlng. eople sLlll aren'L seelng Lhe llnk beLween pracLlce
and daLa. 1hls ls Lhe bow we need Lo Lle for Lhem. We need Lo make LhaL connecLlon.
1hey are scared of Lhe SLCs because Lhey are used Lo observaLlon" and Lhus flnd lL less
lnLlmldaLlng.
5ommoty
Cverall, parLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL Lhey vlewed SLLu favorably. 1hey generally agreed
LhaL educaLors should be assessed ln parL based on growLh ln sLudenL learnlng and LhaL
observaLlons should also conLrlbuLe Lo Lhelr evaluaLlons. Cn Lhe whole, parLlclpanLs,
wheLher Leachers or leaders, reporLed LhaL SLLu ls slmllar Lo Lhelr prlor evaluaLlon
sysLems. 1he maln slmllarlLles lle ln SLLu's emphasls on observaLlon and Leacher-
creaLed goals. 1he maln dlfferences are ln (1) Lhe more expllclL lnsLrucLlonal sLandards,
embedded ln Lhe rubrlc, (2) an lncreased number of observaLlons, (3) Lhe use of sLudenL
learnlng ob[ecLlves, and (4) Lhe summaLlve, numerlcally-based raLlng.
uesplLe Lhelr famlllarlLy wlLh lLs componenLs, educaLors felL LhaL SLLu ls complex.
1eachers were more unlfled ln Lhls perspecLlve Lhan prlnclpals or dlsLrlcL leaders, who
had recelved more Lralnlng on Lhe model. ln mosL focus groups, Leachers reporLed LhaL
SLLu was overwhelmlng" or LhaL Lhey felL overwhelmed" by Lhe new sysLem,
especlally ln Lhe flrsL round of daLa collecLlon (fall, 2012). lor example, Leachers and
prlnclpals reporL LhaL esLabllshlng SLCs was very Llme-consumlng. rlnclpals and
asslsLanL prlnclpals ofLen had Lo educaLe Leachers abouL how Lo wrlLe SLCs Lhrough Lhe
goal-seLLlng process.
LducaLors reporLed LhaL Lhe Llme beLween Lralnlngs and acLlon on Lasks (e.g., SLC
developmenL) was very shorL. 1lmellnes were reporLed Lo be rlgld, desplLe delays ln
Lralnlng and Lhe flnallzaLlon of forms. ln some cases, educaLors reporLed LhaL Leachers
and speclallsLs recelved Lralnlng on a componenL of SLLu and were expecLed Lo
lmplemenL Lhe componenL lmmedlaLely. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of parLlclpanLs, from dlsLrlcL
offlclals Lo Leachers Lo Lralners, reporLed LhaL Lhe pace of lmplemenLaLlon was Loo
rushed Lo maxlmlze SLLu's beneflLs.

47
Cbservat|ons
arLlclpanLs reporLed LhaL Lhe observaLlon componenL of SLLu ls generally slmllar Lo
whaL Lhey had experlenced under prevlous evaluaLlon sysLems. 1he maln dlfferences
were an lncreased number of requlred observaLlons, Lhe use of a sLandardlzed rubrlc Lo
gulde observaLlons, and Lhe resulLlng summaLlve raLlng. AL Lhe concluslon of Lhe plloL
year, 33 of Leachers surveyed reporLed LhaL belng observed under SLLu was
somewhaL or very valuable (llgure 14).
I|gure 14. 1eachers' keported Va|ue of 1|me Spent 8e|ng Cbserved Under SLLD (Ia||
2013 Survey, 1=S33)

When we examlne Lhe responses of Leachers who reporLed belng observed more Lhan
ln prlor years, we flnd LhaL a sllghLly larger percenLage--38--found observaLlons
valuable. ln lnLervlews, Leachers echoed Lhls senLlmenL, wlLh a ma[orlLy of Leachers
saylng LhaL Lhey found Lhe experlence of belng observed helpful Lo Lhem. ln parLlcular,
Lhey were graLeful for feedback on Lhelr lnsLrucLlon.
School admlnlsLraLors reporLed observaLlons were qulLe valuable Lo Lhem. AlLhough all
admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL Lhey sLruggled Lo compleLe Lhe requlred observaLlons, Lhe
overwhelmlng ma[orlLy--94-- of admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL observlng Leachers under
SLLu was somewhaL or very valuable Lo Lhem (llgure 13).

7%
12%
26%
S8%
17%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
Not at all valuable Not veiy valuable Neutial Somewhat valuable veiy valuable
Being 0bseiveu
48
I|gure 1S. Adm|n|strators' keported Va|ue of 1|me Spent Cbserv|ng 1eachers Under
SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=22)

kobtlc
SLLu requlres LhaL Leachers be evaluaLed uslng a rubrlc wlLh mulLlple performance
caLegorles. 1hls ls a marked deparLure from prlor pracLlce ln mosL ConnecLlcuL dlsLrlcLs.
Cn average, Leachers expressed neuLral or poslLlve vlews of Lhe observaLlon rubrlc. A
Lhlrd of Leachers (34) agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhe observaLlon rubrlc accuraLely
descrlbes a conLlnuum of Leacher quallLy and 32 of Leachers were neuLral on Lhls
quesLlon (1able 11).
1ab|e 11. Irequenc|es for responses to "1he observat|on rubr|c accurate|y descr|bes a
cont|nuum of teach|ng qua||ty" (Ia|| 2013 Survey)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
1eachers (o=333) 16 19 32 28 6
School AdmlnlsLraLors (o=22) 3 11 16 42 26

AdmlnlsLraLors' vlews of Lhe rubrlc were more poslLlve Lhan Lhose of Leachers. 1wo-
Lhlrds (68) of admlnlsLraLors surveyed lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey belleved LhaL Lhe
observaLlon rubrlc accuraLely descrlbed a conLlnuum of Leachlng quallLy. ln lnLervlews,
prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe rubrlc helped Lhem make evaluaLlon meanlngful. ln Lhe pasL,
prlnclpals reporLed LhaL observaLlons were, ln Lhe words of one prlnclpal, very, very
6%
u%
u%
44%
Su%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Not at all
valuable
Not veiy valuable Neutial Somewhat
valuable
veiy valuable
0bseiving Teacheis
49
sub[ecLlve." She added LhaL, ln her vlew, 1eocbscope LaughL admlnlsLraLors how Lo
conducL more ob[ecLlve observaLlons.
AnoLher beneflL of Lhe new observaLlons clLed by school leaders ls LhaL Lhe rubrlc
encouraged a common language." under SLLu, good lnsLrucLlon seems more clear" Lo
Leachers and admlnlsLraLors, sald one prlnclpal. 1hls was really helpful," she sald. l am
sorry l goL lL ln Lhe lasL year of my Lenure (career)." 1he rubrlc Lakes pressure off me.
numbers don'L lle. lL's helped me Lo have Lhose harder conversaLlons. l llke Lo make
people happy.and lL's helped me Lo be dlrecL and make hard declslons."
School leaders commenLed LhaL Lhe rubrlc lacked speclflcs ln some domalns (e.g., 3A)
and ralsed quesLlons abouL lLs appllcablllLy ln cerLaln slLuaLlons, for example, wlLh
speclallsLs. As would be expecLed, admlnlsLraLors also reporLed LhaL lL Look Lhem a
conslderable amounL of Llme Lo become famlllar wlLh Lhe rubrlc and how Lo maLch
evldence Lo dlfferenL domalns. Some admlnlsLraLors also sLruggled wlLh Lhe large
amounL of lnformaLlon generaLed by Lhe many lndlcaLors lncluded ln Lhe rubrlc. 1hey
sald Lhey needed Lo sLreamllne Lhe lnformaLlon for each Leacher ln order Lo make
feedback useful, raLher Lhan overwhelmlng.
Leaders of many schools furLher reporLed LhaL Leachers generally responded poslLlvely
Lo Lhe rubrlc. 1hey observed LhaL many Leachers had Lo recallbraLe Lhelr vlews of Lhelr
own performance. Sald one dlsLrlcL leader, Leachers have had Lo come Lo Lerms wlLh
lower scores," wlLh some Leachers sLruggllng wlLh Lhe senLlmenL LhaL l used Lo be
'proflclenL' and now l'm 'developlng.'" ulsLrlcL and school leaders reporLed LhaL Leachers
had responded neuLrally or poslLlvely Lo Lhe rubrlc.

</1?-%-1&-#
MulLlple daLa sources suggesL LhaL posL-observaLlon conferences were one of Lhe mosL
valuable aspecLs of SLLu ln Lhe plloL year. Cverall, 37 of Leachers surveyed found
Lalklng wlLh evaluaLor Lo be a valuable experlence (llgure 16). As we wlll dlscuss ln deLall
below, Leachers who spenL more Llme ln posL-observaLlon conferences under SLLu
compared Lo prlor evaluaLlon sysLems found lL Lo be of even greaLer value. Speclflcally,
69 of Leachers who spenL more Llme durlng SLLu debrleflng wlLh evaluaLors afLer
observaLlons found Lhls Lo be somewhaL or very valuable.
Slmllarly, school admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL posL-observaLlon conferences were
valuable. 1he vasL ma[orlLy (94) of admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL such meeLlngs were
valuable or very valuable. llfLy percenL of respondenLs lndlcaLed LhaL Lhese conferences
were very valuable. As mlghL be expecLed, a lower percenLage (43) reporLed LhaL
wrlLlng up observaLlons was somewhaL or very valuable.

30
I|gure 16. Va|ue of 1|me Spent In ost-Cbservat|on Under SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=S33)

I|gure 17. Adm|n|strators' keported Va|ue of 1|me Spent |n 1eacher ost-Cbservat|on
1asks Under SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=22)

8%
1u%
2S%
SS%
24%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
Talking with Evaluatoi Aftei 0bseivations
6%
u%
u%
Su%
44%
6%
17%
SS%
28%
17%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Not at all
valuable
valuable
veiy valuable
Talking with Teacheis Post-0bseivation Wiiting 0p 0bseivations
31
As noLed ln prlor secLlons, Leachers reporLed LhaL mld-year conferences were brlef and
perfuncLory and dld noL resulL ln much learnlng. Powever, admlnlsLraLors felL Lhese
conferences were valuable. SevenLy-Lwo percenL of admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL Lhe
mld-year conferences Lhey held were somewhaL or very valuable, perhaps because Lhey
galned lnformaLlon from Leachers abouL Lhelr pracLlce durlng Lhese sesslons (llgure 18).
I|gure 18. Va|ue of Adm|n|strator 1|me on M|d-ear Conferences (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=22)

(6**)$"2- </1?-%-1&-#
Cn Lhe whole, a ma[orlLy of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhelr summaLlve raLlng was accuraLe.
More Lhan half (38) agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhelr summaLlve raLlng for Lhe plloL
year was accuraLe (see 1able 12). SevenLeen percenL dlsagreed or sLrongly dlsagreed,
wlLh one-quarLer expresslng a neuLral poslLlon. 1he admlnlsLraLor survey also lncluded
Lhls lLem. When asked wheLher Lhey felL Leachers' summaLlve raLlngs were accuraLe,
47 agreed, one-quarLer were neuLral and Lhe balance dlsagreed or sLrongly dlsagreed
(1able 13).
1ab|e 12. Irequenc|es for 1eachers' ercept|ons of the Va||d|ty of SLLD Measures (Ia||
2013 Survey, 1=S33)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
l feel tbot my sommotlve
totloq ftom 2012-201J ls
occotote.
7 10 23 44 14

6% 6%
17%
44%
28%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Not at all
valuable
valuable
veiy valuable
Boluing Niu-Yeai Confeiences
32

1ab|e 13. Irequenc|es for Adm|n|strators' ercept|ons of the Va||d|ty of 1eacher SLLD
Measures (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=22)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
1eocbets sommotlve totloqs
ftom 2012-1J ote occotote.
10.3 13.8 26.3 47.4 0.0

1eachers found summaLlve conferences Lo be neuLral Lo valuable. lorLy-Lhree percenL of
Leachers reporLed LhaL such meeLlngs were somewhaL or very valuable, whlle 32 of
Leachers were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon.
ln conLrasL Lo Lhls, survey daLa revealed LhaL Lhe greaL ma[orlLy--89--of admlnlsLraLors
found Lhe summaLlve meeLlngs Lo be somewhaL or very valuable (fall 2013 survey). ln
lnLervlews, prlnclpals reporLed LhaL summaLlve conferences were equally or more
producLlve Lhan ln Lhe pasL. 1he facL LhaL Lhe raLlng was, ln one prlnclpal's words, all
based on daLa" reduced Lhe frequency of argumenLs wlLh Leachers over summaLlve
resulLs accordlng Lo prlnclpals. MosL prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe summaLlve raLlngs
generally supporLed Lhelr assumpLlons abouL Leacher performance.
Cne prlnclpal sald LhaL Lhe facL LhaL Lhe summaLlve My leotoloq lloo documenL showed
all evldence from LhroughouL Lhe year helped make summaLlve conferences daLa-drlven.
She sald LhaL under SLLu Lhe summaLlve conference was a very, very good
conversaLlon. lL was much more producLlve, focused Lhan ln years pasL" slnce Lhe
conversaLlon was focused on Lhe evldence raLher Lhan based on broad reflecLlve
quesLlons. AnoLher prlnclpal felL LhaL summaLlve conferences wenL very, very well."
Whlle she felL LhaL My leotoloq lloo was burdensome ln oLher respecLs, she felL LhaL lL
added value Lo Lhe summaLlve conference: SummaLlve ls Lhe easlesL plece of all,"
because, My leotoloq lloo complles everyLhlng."
7/), (-$$"1=
ln Lhe early monLhs of SLLu's lmplemenLaLlon, goal seLLlng was a source of confuslon
and anxleLy for many Leachers and some school admlnlsLraLors. ln our flrsL round of
lnLervlews, Leachers, ln parLlcular, reporLed feellng greaL sLraln abouL SLCs and lACus.
AL Lhe concluslon of Lhe plloL year, Leachers reporLed much less sLress abouL goal seLLlng.
Survey daLa lndlcaLed LhaL goal seLLlng, ln general, and Lhe analysls of sLudenL daLa, ln
parLlcular, were ulLlmaLely valued by Leachers ln plloL slLes.
Cn Lhe whole, 39 of Leachers surveyed ln fall 2013 reporLed LhaL SLCs were useful Lo
Lhem as professlonals. 1wenLy-nlne percenL of Leachers were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon.

33
Cverall, Leachers were more sangulne abouL Lhe processes lnvolved ln goal seLLlng.
1eachers reporLed flndlng goal seLLlng, Lhe Llme spenL analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr
sLudenLs, and collecLlng evldence for Lhelr self-assessmenL valuable, on average (see
llgure 19). llfLy-Lhree percenL of Leachers reporLed LhaL goal seLLlng was somewhaL or
very valuable ln Lhe fall 2013 survey. More Lhan Lwo-Lhlrds of parLlclpanLs (68)
lndlcaLed LhaL analyzlng sLudenL daLa was somewhaL or very valuable and 31 reporLed
LhaL collecLlng evldence for self-assessmenL was slmllarly valuable.
I|gure 19. Va|ue of 1|me Spent on Improvement-ke|ated 1asks (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=S33)

Moreover, Leachers who spenL more Llme analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs found
LhaL Llme Lo be valuable. As deplcLed ln llgure x below, 67 of Leachers who spenL
more Llme durlng SLLu analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs found Lhls Lo be somewhaL
or very valuable.
AdmlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL Lhey found goal seLLlng and havlng Leachers analyze daLa
abouL Lhelr sLudenLs wlLhln SLLu Lo be valuable. As shown below (llgure 20), 94 of
admlnlsLraLors surveyed reporLed LhaL Lhe goal-seLLlng process was somewhaL or very
valuable and 93 responded ln Lhls manner abouL LhaL Lhe daLa analysls process.
9%
19%
2u%
S6%
17%
S%
11%
16%
S6%
S2%
1u%
14%
2S%
SS%
16%
u%
2u%
4u%
6u%
uoal Setting Analyzing Bata about Stuuents Collecting Eviuence foi Self-Assessment
S4
I|gure 20. Va|ue of Adm|n|strator 1|me on Goa| Sett|ng 1asks (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=22)

C-,)$"2- D),6- /? A&$"2"$"-#
1o galn a sense of SLLu's poLenLlal effecLs when lmplemenLed as Lhe model lnLends, we
examlned Lhe responses of Leachers who reporLed LhaL Lhey had spenL more Llme on varlous
evaluaLlon Lasks Lhan under prlor evaluaLlon sysLems.
When we examlne only Lhose Leachers who lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey spenL more Llme on varlous
Leacher evaluaLlon and developmenL Lasks, we flnd LhaL a modesL Lo large percenLage of
Leachers lndlcaLed LhaL Lhls addlLlonal Llme on SLLu-relaLed Lasks was somewhaL or very
valuable (see llgures 21 & 22). 1wo acLlvlLles ln parLlcular were valuable Lo a large proporLlon
of Leachers: 69 of Leachers who spenL more Llme durlng SLLu Lalklng wlLh evaluaLors afLer
observaLlons found Lhls Lo be somewhaL or very valuable and 67 of Leachers who spenL more
Llme durlng SLLu analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs found Lhls Lo be somewhaL or very
valuable. Moreover, among Leachers who reporLed belng observed more Lhan under prevlous
evaluaLlon sysLems, 38 reporLed LhaL belng observed was valuable. Cf Leachers who reporLed
spendlng more Llme on goal seLLlng, 32 found lL valuable or very valuable. llfLy-one percenL of
Leachers who spenL more Llme gaLherlng daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs for self-assessmenL found
Lhls process valuable.

6%
u%
u%
Su%
44%
6%
u%
u%
S6%
S9%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Not at all
valuable
valuable
veiy valuable
uoal Setting Analyzing Bata about Stuuents
SS
I|gure 21. Va|ue of Add|t|ona| 1|me Spent on 1eacher Lva|uat|on (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=S33)

I|gure 22. Va|ue of Add|t|ona| 1|me Spent Us|ng Data (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=S33)

11%
6% 7%
22%
11%
8%
16%
2S%
17%
SS%
S9%
S8%
17%
19%
S1%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
uoal Setting Being 0bseiveu Talking with Evaluatoi
Aftei 0bseivations
veiy valuable
Somewhat valuable
Neutial
Not veiy valuable
Not at all valuable
7%
1S%
1S%
16%
1S%
21%
S7%
S4%
Su%
17%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Analyzing Bata About Stuuents Collecting Eviuence foi Self-
Assessment
veiy valuable
Somewhat valuable
Neutial
Not veiy valuable
Not at all valuable
S6
Cverall, admlnlsLraLors reporLed LhaL Lhe Llme Lhey spenL on mosL SLLu Lasks was somewhaL
valuable (see 1able 14). 1hese Lasks lnclude seLLlng goals wlLh Leachers, analyzlng sLudenL daLa
wlLh Leachers, conducLlng mld-year conferences, observlng Leachers, Lalklng wlLh Leachers
abouL Lhelr pracLlce afLer observaLlons, dlscusslng Leachers' performance wlLh Lhem durlng
summaLlve meeLlngs, and consLrucLlng professlonal developmenL plans. AdmlnlsLraLors, on Lhe
whole, found Lhe Llme Lhey spenL wrlLlng up observaLlons and generaLlng summaLlve raLlngs Lo
be nelLher valuable nor noL valuable.
1ab|e 14. D|str|but|on of 1|me Spent on Lva|uat|on and Deve|opment 1asks (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=18)
93 Cl
Meoo* Lower upper
Coal SeLLlng wlLh 1eachers 4.00 3.60 4.40
Analyzlng SLudenL uaLa wlLh 1eachers 3.88 3.32 4.24
Poldlng Mld-?ear Conferences 3.88 3.48 4.28
Cbservlng 1eachers 4.18 3.61 4.73
1alklng abouL 1eacher racLlce wlLh 1eachers
AfLer CbservaLlons
3.94 3.31 4.37
WrlLlng up CbservaLlons 4.06 3.34 4.78
CeneraLlng 1eachers' SummaLlve 8aLlngs 4.38 3.84 4.91
ulscusslng 1eachers' erformance wlLh 1hem ln
SummaLlve MeeLlngs
3.82 3.49 4.16
ConsLrucLlng rofesslonal uevelopmenL lans 3.63 3.32 3.97
* Cn a scale where: 1 = A loL less Llme Lhan lasL year, 2 = A blL less Llme Lhan lasL year, 3 = AbouL Lhe same
amounL of Llme as lasL year, 4 = A blL more Llme Lhan lasL year, 3 = A loL more Llme Lhan
lasL year.

1hese flndlngs suggesL LhaL when lmplemenLed wlLh fldellLy, SLLu's evaluaLlon acLlvlLles --posL-
observaLlon debrlefs and daLa analysls, ln parLlcular-are valued by Leachers.
Var|at|ons
Cn Lhe whole, we found slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Leachers' experlences by Lenure sLaLus, school
level, and dlsLrlcL.
varlaLlons by Crade Level
ln surveys, we found dlfferences ln Leacher experlences by grade level. LlemenLary Leachers
reporLed more poslLlve vlews on SLLu's componenLs Lhan dld Lhelr mlddle school or hlgh school
counLerparLs. Across Lhe Lhree Lypes of schools, Leachers reporLed slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch SLudenL Learnlng Cb[ecLlves (SLCs) were useful Lo Lhem as professlonals, l (2,
418) = 10.46, p < .001, and Lhe exLenL Lo whlch feedback from classroom observaLlons was
useful Lo Lhem as professlonals, l (2, 416) = 8.70, p < .001 (see llgures 23 & 24). 1hese flndlngs
are conslsLenL wlLh a long llne of research suggesLlng LhaL reforms Lake rooL more easlly ln
S7
elemenLary schools Lhan Lhelr secondary counLerparLs. Moreover, secondary schools' larger
slze and deparLmenLal sLrucLure may presenL parLlcular challenges Lo Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of
Leacher evaluaLlon sysLems.
uunneLL's 13 posL-hoc comparlsons of Lhe Lhree grade levels lndlcaLe LhaL elemenLary school
Leachers (M=3.24, 93 Cl [3.10, 3.39]) found SLCs Lo be slgnlflcanLly more useful Lhan hlgh
school Leachers (M=2.71, 93 Cl [2.32, 2.89]), p < .001. Comparlsons beLween mlddle school
Leachers (M=3.01, 93 Cl [2.80, 3.22]) and Leachers aL Lhe oLher Lwo grade levels were noL
slgnlflcanL aL p < .03.
I|gure 23. Means |ot for Usefu|ness of SLCs across Grade Leve|s (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=S33)

osL-hoc comparlsons also lndlcaLe LhaL elemenLary school Leachers (M=3.33, 93 Cl [3.39,
3.68]) found feedback from classroom observaLlons Lo be slgnlflcanLly more useful Lhan mlddle
school Leachers (M=3.13, 93 Cl [2.91, 3.39]), p = .022, and hlgh school Leachers (M=3.04, 93
Cl [2.84, 3.24]), p < .001. Mlddle school Leachers and hlgh school Leachers dld noL lndlcaLe
slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln responses aL p < .03.

S.24
S.u1
2.71
1
2
S
4
S
SL0s aie useful to me as a piofessional
S8
I|gure 24. Means |ot for Usefu|ness of Ieedback from Cbservat|ons across Grade Leve|s (Ia||
2013 Survey, 1=S33)

Moreover, a one-way AnCvA LesLed wheLher Lhere were slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Leacher
percepLlons of Lhe valldlLy of SLLu measures across grade levels. 1here were no dlfferences ln
Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Leachers lndlcaLed LhaL Lhey feel Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs from 2012-13
were accuraLe, l(2, 408) = .01, p = .990.
1eachers reporLed slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey belleved LhaL Lhe
observaLlon proLocol accuraLely descrlbes a conLlnuum of Leachlng quallLy, l(2, 408) = 9.38, p
< .001 (see llgure 23). 1ukey's posL-hoc comparlsons lndlcaLe LhaL elemenLary school Leachers
(M=3.13, 93 Cl [2.97, 3.29]) agree slgnlflcanLly more wlLh Lhls sLaLemenL Lhan hlgh school
Leachers (M=2.37, 93 Cl [2.37, 2.77]), p < .001. 1he dlfference beLween mlddle school
Leachers (M=2.89, 93 Cl [2.67, 3.11]) and hlgh school Leachers ls sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL aL
Lhe .10 level (p = .078), Lhe dlfference beLween elemenLary school Leachers and mlddle school
Leachers ls noL slgnlflcanL aL p < .03.
Cne-way AnCvAs lndlcaLe LhaL Lhere were slgnlflcanL dlfferences across grade levels ln Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch Leachers valued Lhe Llme spenL on goal seLLlng, belng observed, Lalklng abouL
Lhelr pracLlce wlLh Lhelr prlnclpal/evaluaLor afLer observaLlons, analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr
sLudenLs, collecLlng evldence Lo supporL self-assessmenL of professlonal growLh, recelvlng
summaLlve raLlngs, and dlscusslng summaLlve raLlngs. ln each of Lhese Leacher evaluaLlon and
developmenL Lasks, elemenLary school Leachers reporLed valulng Lhe Lask slgnlflcanLly more
Lhan hlgh school Leachers, mlddle school Leachers also valued Llme spenL on goal seLLlng,
analyzlng daLa abouL Lhelr sLudenLs, and collecLlng evldence Lo supporL self-assessmenL of
professlonal growLh slgnlflcanLly more Lhan hlgh school Leachers. 1here were no slgnlflcanL
dlfferences beLween elemenLary school Leachers and mlddle school Leachers ln Lhe exLenL Lo
whlch Lhey valued Llme spenL on any of Lhese acLlvlLles.
S.SS
S.1S
S.u4
1
2
S
4
S
Feeuback fiom obseivations is useful to me as a piofessional
S9
I|gure 2S. Means |ot for 1eacher ercept|ons of SLLD kubr|c Va||d|ty across Grade Leve|s
(Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=S33)

ulfferences across 1enure SLaLus
lndependenL-samples t LesLs lndlcaLe LhaL Lhere was no dlfference beLween non-Lenured and
Lenured Leachers ln Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey belleved Lhe observaLlon rubrlc accuraLely
descrlbes a conLlnuum of Leachlng quallLy, t (429) = 1.42, p = .136, or Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey
felL Lhelr summaLlve raLlng from 2012-13 was accuraLe, t (424) = .92, p = .360.
non-Lenured Leachers found, overall, LhaL Lhelr Llme spenL on SLLu acLlvlLles was more valuable
Lhan Lenured Leachers, wlLh Lhe excepLlon of Lhe Llme spenL on analyzlng daLa, for whlch Lhere
was no slgnlflcanL dlfference. 1he average non-Lenured Leacher found goal seLLlng, belng
observed, Lalklng abouL Lhelr pracLlce wlLh Lhe prlnclpal/evaluaLor afLer belng observed,
collecLlng evldence Lo supporL self-assessmenL of professlonal growLh, and dlscusslng Lhelr
summaLlve raLlng Lo be somewhaL valuable," whereas Lenured Leachers gave Lhese acLlvlLles a
neuLral mean score. 1hls may be due Lo Lhe facL, dlscussed ln prlor secLlons as well as below,
LhaL non-Lenured Leachers recelved a larger dose" of SLLu, speclflcally, Lhey recelved more
observaLlons and more conferences, on average.
Moreover, on Lhe sprlng survey, Lenured Leachers reporLed slgnlflcanLly less confldence ln Lhelr
evaluaLor's ablllLy Lo evaluaLe Lhem falrly Lhan non-Lenured Leachers, wlLh t(348) = 4.66, p
< .001. Cnly 21 of Lenured Leachers agreed LhaL Lhelr evaluaLor had sufflclenL knowledge,
Llme, and resources Lo lmplemenL SLLu, compared Lo 39 of non-Lenured Leachers. 1hls may
be due Lo Lhe facL LhaL prlnclpals observed non-Lenured Leachers more Lhan Lenured Leachers,
on average. lor example, as of sprlng 2013, Lhe ma[orlLy of Lenured Leachers (73) reporLed
LhaL Lhey had been formally observed once or noL aL all, compared Lo only 43 of non-Lenured
Leachers - Lhe ma[orlLy of whom had been formally observed Lwlce or more.
S.1S
2.89
2.S7
1
2
S
4
S
Accuiacy of 0bseivation Rubiic in Biffeienting Teacheis
6u
varlaLlons by ulsLrlcL
Cverall, we saw dlfferences ln how Leachers vlewed SLLu across dlfferenL dlsLrlcLs. 1here were
slgnlflcanL dlfferences across dlsLrlcLs ln many lndlcaLors of Leacher experlences, lncludlng how
well Leachers undersLood how Lhey were evaluaLed under SLLu [l(8, 466) = 3.13, p = .002], Lhe
exLenL Lo whlch Lhey belleve Lhe observaLlon rubrlc descrlbes a conLlnuum of Leachlng quallLy
[l(8, 439) = 3.49, p < .001], Lhe value of Lalklng abouL Lhelr pracLlce wlLh Lhelr evaluaLor afLer
belng observed [l(8, 432) = 3.32, p = .001], and Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Leachers felL LhaL Lhelr
summaLlve raLlngs from 2012-13 were accuraLe [l(8, 434) = 2.93, p = .003]. 1here was one plloL
slLe wlLh parLlcularly hlgher mean raLlngs of Leacher experlences and a few slLes wlLh
parLlcularly lower mean raLlngs across Lhese four lndlcaLors, suggesLlng LhaL Lhere ls a
conslsLenL effecL relaLed Lo dlsLrlcL conLexL.
SpeclallsLs ralse sLrong concerns abouL SLLu
AL each sLage of SLLu lmplemenLaLlon, speclallsLs ralsed sLrong concerns abouL SLLu. MosL
speclallsLs, lncludlng psychologlsLs, lnLervenLlonlsLs, lnsLrucLlonal coaches, muslc Leachers, and
soclal workers, felL LhaL Lhe lnsLrucLlonal pracLlce rubrlc dld noL capLure many aspecLs of Lhelr
work. Moreover, many speclallsLs reporLed crafLlng SLCs based on a small group of sLudenLs
and someLlmes even one sLudenL. 1hey ralsed quesLlons abouL wheLher Lhey should be
assessed based on Lhe progress of such a small number of sLudenLs. SpeclallsLs were also
confused abouL how Lo drafL SLCs, and Lhey spenL a greaL deal of Llme Lrylng Lo wrlLe Lhem.
1hese educaLors were especlally lnLeresLed ln recelvlng examples of SLCs. Cverall, speclallsLs
expressed a sLrong deslre LhaL SLLu be dlfferenLlaLed Lo meeL Lhelr needs as educaLors whose
poslLlons are sLrucLured qulLe dlfferenLly from Lhose of Leachers of core sub[ecLs.
Adm|n|strator SLLD
Cn Lhe whole, school admlnlsLraLors reporLed varled responses on SLLu's accuracy as a Lool Lo
measure admlnlsLraLor performance, buL generally vlewed Lhelr SLLu raLlngs as accuraLe. Cn
average, Lhe admlnlsLraLors ln our sample nelLher agreed nor dlsagreed LhaL SLLu accuraLely
measures Lhe performance of admlnlsLraLors (M=3.34, 93 Cl [2.64, 4.07]), LhaL Lhe lndlcaLors
of school leadershlp quallLy lncluded ln SLLu capLure whaL effecLlve admlnlsLraLors do (M=2.76,
93 Cl[2.17, 3.36]), or LhaL Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs from 2012-13 are accuraLe (M=3.29, 93
Cl[2.83, 3.76]). Powever, Lhere was a range of responses Lo Lhese survey lLems. Speclflcally,
30 of admlnlsLraLors surveyed agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL SLLu accuraLely measures
admlnlsLraLor performance, 33 of respondenLs were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon, and 36 of
respondenLs dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed (see 1able 13). lorLy-seven percenL of respondenLs
lndlcaLed LhaL SLLu's lndlcaLors capLure whaL effecLlve admlnlsLraLors do, whlle [usL 18
dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed on Lhls lLem. ln conLrasL Lo Lhese falrly evenly dlsLrlbuLed
responses, 39 of admlnlsLraLors reporLed agreelng or sLrongly agreelng LhaL Lhelr flnal SLLu
raLlng was accuraLe.

61
1ab|e 1S. Irequenc|es for Adm|n|strators' ercept|ons of the Va||d|ty of SLLD Measures (Ia||
2013 Survey, 1=22)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
l belleve 5u occototely
meosotes tbe petfotmooce of
oJmlolsttotots.
24 12 33 24 6
1be loJlcotots of scbool leoJetsblp
poollty locloJeJ lo 5u coptote
wbot effectlve oJmlolsttotots Jo.
6 12 33 41 6
l feel tbot my sommotlve
totloq ftom 2012-201J ls occotote.
24 0 18 33 24

We asked school admlnlsLraLors addlLlonal quesLlons abouL Lhelr vlews on SLLu for
admlnlsLraLors. Cn average, admlnlsLraLors responded on four lndlcaLors LhaL Lhey belleved
SLLu would lnfluence pracLlce neuLrally: Lhe admlnlsLraLors we surveyed nelLher agreed nor
dlsagreed, on Lhe whole, LhaL Lhey recelved approprlaLe levels of supporL based on Lhelr
summaLlve raLlngs, LhaL Lhey recelved approprlaLe levels of recognlLlon based on Lhelr
summaLlve raLlngs, LhaL Lhey felL more pressure Lo have sLudenLs make academlc progress
whlle uslng SLLu, or LhaL Lhe SLLu model ls golng Lo help admlnlsLraLors lmprove Lhelr
leadershlp pracLlce (see 1able 16).
1ab|e 16. D|str|but|on of Adm|n|strator Cutcomes of SLLD Imp|ementat|on (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=22)
93 C.l.
N Meoo Lower upper
l feel tbot l bove tecelveJ opptoptlote levels of
soppott boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
17 3.47 2.84 4.10
tecoqoltloo boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
17 3.29 2.67 3.92
l bove felt mote ptessote to bove stoJeots moke
ocoJemlc ptoqtess sloce we beqoo osloq 5u.
17 2.94 2.30 3.38
1be 5u moJel ls qoloq to belp oJmlolsttotots
lmptove tbelt leoJetsblp ptoctlce.
17 3.29 2.67 3.92

62
C|os|ng kemarks
Cn Lhe whole, we found LhaL parLlclpanLs holdlng a range of roles expressed a poslLlve or
neuLral vlew of Lhe SLLu model. very few parLlclpanLs re[ecLed Lhe enLlre model ouL of hand.
1eachers and school leaders found observaLlons, posL-observaLlon conferences, and analyzlng
sLudenL daLa Lo be valuable aspecLs of SLLu. 1he sLaLe and dlsLrlcLs should bulld upon Lhese
early poslLlve resulLs, bolsLerlng Lhese aspecLs of SLLu whlle respondlng Lo educaLors' crlLlclsms
of oLher componenLs of Lhe model.

6S
I|nd|ngs on SLLD Imp|ementat|on Cutcomes

ConslsLenL wlLh our charge, we examlned Lhe flrsL-year lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu wlLhln Lhe 14
plloL dlsLrlcLs. ln Lhls secLlon, we dlscuss our flndlngs relaLed Lo Lhe prellmlnary ouLcomes of Lhe
SLLu plloLs for Leachers and school admlnlsLraLors. CuLcomes from a plloL model should be
lnLerpreLed wlLh due cauLlon. A plloL program ls lnLended Lo LesL a model and ls noL Lyplcally
lmplemenLed wlLh compleLe fldellLy. 1he resulLs of evaluaLlons of plloL programs are meanL Lo
lnform Lhe sysLem, raLher Lhan Lo permlL summaLlve concluslons abouL Lhe program. We
presenL daLa LhaL respond Lo Lhe followlng quesLlons:
Cu1CCMLS Cl SLLu
1. 1o whaL exLenL dld educaLors reporL changlng Lhelr pracLlces as a resulL of Lhe SLLu?
2. 1o whaL exLenL was Lhere varlaLlon ln evaluaLlon raLlngs wlLhln schools and dlsLrlcLs
aL Lhe concluslon of Lhe SLLu plloL year?

ln general, we found LhaL some Leachers and leaders reporLed changed pracLlce as a resulL of
SLLu. LlemenLary school and non-Lenured Leachers were slgnlflcanLly more llkely Lo reporL LhaL
SLLu had resulLed ln changes Lo Lhelr pracLlce or had Lhe poLenLlal Lo do so ln Lhe fuLure.
School admlnlsLraLors reporLed mlxed vlews on Lhe exLenL Lo whlch SLLu had changed Lhelr
pracLlce or would do so ln Lhe fuLure. SummaLlve performance raLlngs lndlcaLe Lhe ma[orlLy of
Leachers were raLed as ptoflcleot (73) or exemploty (23), wlLh a much smaller percenLage
raLed as below stooJotJ (<1) or Jeveloploq (4). Some varlaLlon ln Lhese flgures occurred
across dlsLrlcLs, wlLh Lhe ma[orlLy of varlaLlon exlsLlng beLween Lhe Lop Lwo raLlng caLegorles.
ln Lhe secLlons below, we flrsL dlscuss educaLors' vlews on wheLher Leachers and leaders
changed Lhelr pracLlces as a resulL of parLlclpaLlng ln SLLu. We Lhen dlscuss varlaLlons ln
reporLed changes Lo pracLlce. We Lhen Lurn Lo summaLlve raLlngs, presenLlng aggregaLe raLlngs
dlsLrlbuLlons and Lhelr varlaLlons. We conclude wlLh a summary.
Changes |n 1eacher ract|ce
Cne of Lhe maln goals of SLLu ls Lo lmprove Leachers' and school leaders' pracLlce. ln facL, Lhls
goal ls enshrlned ln lnlLlaLlve's LlLle: Lhe SysLem for LducaLor LvaluaLlon and uevelopmenL. AL
Lhe concluslon of Lhe plloL year, parLlclpanLs reporLed modesL changes Lo Leacher pracLlce as a
resulL of SLLu.
E-)&.-%#F D"-3# /1 (GG!F# G??-&$# /1 E.-"% >%)&$"&-
1eachers expressed mlxed vlews on wheLher SLCs changed Lhelr pracLlce, buL were more
poslLlve abouL Lhe lnfluence of observaLlons on Lhelr Leachlng.
As shown ln 1able 17, 36 of Leachers agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL seLLlng SLCs led Lhem Lo
make changes ln Lhelr Leachlng pracLlce whlle 39 dlsagreed or sLrongly dlsagreed. Cn Lhe
64
same lLem, 33 of admlnlsLraLors agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL SLCs led Leachers Lo change
Lhelr pracLlce.
8elaLed Lo goal seLLlng, 34 of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey covered less conLenL ln 2012-13 ln
order Lo focus on Lhelr conLenL and skllls embedded ln Lhelr SLCs. 1wenLy-elghL percenL were
neuLral on Lhls quesLlon and 38 dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed wlLh Lhls sLaLemenL. 1wenLy-slx
percenL of Leachers reporLed LhaL Lhey felL more accounLable for sLudenL performance because
of SLLu, whereas 48 dlsagreed or sLrongly dlsagreed wlLh Lhls sLaLemenL.

1ab|e 17. 1eacher V|ews on SLLD (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1H480)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
5ettloq 5lOs leJ me to moke cbooqes lo my
teocbloq ptoctlce.
12 27 26 32 4
leeJbock ftom closstoom obsetvotloos wos
osefol to me os o ptofessloool.
10 12 23 47 8
leeJbock ftom closstoom obsetvotloos leJ
me to moke cbooqes lo my teocbloq
ptoctlce.
10 13 31 37 7
cbooqes lo my ptoctlce os o tesolt of 5u
wete posltlve.
10 14 41 31 4
l felt mote occoootoble fot qtowtb lo my
stoJeots leotoloq ooJet 5u tboo l JlJ lo
ptevloos yeots.
21 27 27 21 3
l coveteJ less cooteot tboo osool wbeo
teocbloq lo otJet to focos oo tbe cooteot
embeJJeJ lo my stoJeot petfotmooce
qools.
9 29 28 23 11

Compared Lo Lhelr vlews on SLCs, Leachers were more poslLlve abouL Lhe effecLs of observaLlon
on Lhelr pracLlce. AlmosL half of Leachers surveyed (44) agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL
feedback from observaLlons prompLed Lhem Lo change Lhelr pracLlce whlle 23 dlsagreed or
sLrongly dlsagreed. 1hls may be relaLed Lo Lhe facL LhaL a relaLlvely large percenLage (33)
reporLed LhaL feedback from observaLlons were useful Lo Lhem as professlonals, whlle 23
dlsagreed LhaL Lhls was Lhe case.

6S
Cf course, a Leacher's pracLlce can change for Lhe beLLer or Lhe worse. When asked wheLher
Lhe changes broughL abouL by SLLu were poslLlve, 33 of Leachers surveyed agreed/sLrongly
agreed, whlle 41 were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon, and 24 dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed.
ln lnLervlews, Leachers expressed slmllarly mlxed vlews on SLLu's lmpacL on Lhelr lnsLrucLlon.
Some reporLed focuslng dlsproporLlonaLely on Lhe conLenL and skllls embedded ln Lhelr SLCs, as
reflecLed ln Lhe survey flndlngs reporLed above. Some of Lhese Leachers felL Lhls was a good
Lhlng, as Lhelr SLCs reflecLed Lhe mosL lmporLanL conLenL and skllls for Lhelr sLudenLs Lo masLer.
CLhers felL Lhls consLralned Lhelr Leachlng and made lL more dlfflculL for Lhem Lo address oLher
conLenL and skllls wlLh sufflclenL depLh. Some Leachers felL LhaL Lhe rubrlc helped focus Lhelr
Leachlng, glvlng Lhem sLrucLure Lo evaluaLe Lhelr own lnsLrucLlon. CLhers, parLlcularly speclallsLs,
felL LhaL Lhe rubrlc was unreallsLlc glven Lhelr sLudenLs' needs and skllls. Cn Lhe whole, Leachers
reporLed LhaL SLLu had caused Lhem Lo change Lhelr pracLlces sllghLly.
Looklng Lo Lhe fuLure, Leachers expressed some opLlmlsm LhaL Lhey would recelve supporL
based on Lhelr evaluaLlon raLlngs, and somewhaL less falLh LhaL Lhey would recelve recognlLlon
based on Lhese ouLcomes (1able 18). AlmosL half (43) agreed or sLrongly agreed wlLh Lhe
sLaLemenL LhaL Lhey would recelve approprlaLe levels of supporL based on Lhelr summaLlve
raLlng, whlle 33 were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon and almosL a quarLer dlsagreed/sLrongly
dlsagreed wlLh lL. Less Lhan a Lhlrd (29) agreed/sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhey would be
approprlaLely recognlzed for Lhelr raLlng, Lhls lower number could be due Lo Lhe facL LhaL lL was
a plloL year or LhaL only Leachers who recelved relaLlvely hlgh raLlngs felL Lhey would be
recognlzed.
1ab|e 18. 1eacher V|ews on Cutcomes of SLLD Imp|ementat|on (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=480)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
l feel tbot l wlll tecelve
opptoptlote levels of soppott
boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
10 14 33 33 8
opptoptlote levels of tecoqoltloo
boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
14 21 36 24 3
wltb sofflcleot tesootces, socb os
tlme ooJ stoffloq, we woolJ be
oble to ose 5u to lmptove
teocbet ptoctlce ot tbls scbool.
11 13 34 37 3

Cn one of Lhe mosL lmporLanL lLems, 42 of Leachers agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL wlLh
sufflclenL resources school sLaff could use SLLu Lo lmprove Leacher pracLlce aL Lhelr school. 1hls
lLem probes Leachers' opLlmlsm abouL SLLu's lmpacL ln Lhelr seLLlng. Cne Lhlrd of Leachers
were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon, and 24 of Leachers surveyed dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed.
8elow, we explore Lhese dlfferences ln more deLall.
66
A4*"1"#$%)$/% D"-3# /1 (GG!F# G??-&$# /1 E-)&.-% >%)&$"&-
Leaders' vlews on wheLher SLLu changed Leacher pracLlce were slmllarly varled.
Cn average, admlnlsLraLors raLed flve lndlcaLors LhaL Lhey belleved SLLu would lnfluence
pracLlce neuLrally, nelLher agreelng nor dlsagreelng wlLh each lLem (see 1able 19).
1ab|e 19. D|str|but|on of Adm|n|strator ercept|ons of SLLD Cutcomes (Ia|| 2013 Survey)
93 C.l.
o Meoo Lower upper
1eocbets sommotlve totloqs bove beeo oseJ to
lofotm loJlvlJool-level ptofessloool Jevelopmeot.
20 3.11 2.68 3.34
1eocbets felt mote occoootoble fot qtowtb lo tbelt
stoJeots leotoloq ooJet 5u tboo tbey JlJ ptlot
to 5u.
20 3.06 2.61 3.30
1eocbets ot tbls scbool cbooqeJ wbot tbey wete
teocbloq stoJeots lo otJet to ollqo wltb tbe
speclflc qools fot tbelt evolootloo.
19 3.00 2.36 3.44
1eocbets focoseJ beovlly oo tbe cooteot
embeJJeJ lo tbelt stoJeot petfotmooce qools.
20 3.28 2.92 3.64
5ettloq 5lOs leJ teocbets to moke cbooqes lo tbelt
teocbloq ptoctlce.
20 3.17 2.71 3.62

Powever, a subsLanLlal subseL of admlnlsLraLors reporLed changes LhaL Lhey aLLrlbuLe Lo SLLu
(see llgures 26 and 27). Palf (30) of Lhe admlnlsLraLors surveyed lndlcaLed LhaL Leachers'
summaLlve raLlngs have been used Lo lnform lndlvldual-level professlonal developmenL and
40 lndlcaLed LhaL SLLu caused Leachers Lo feel more accounLable for growLh ln sLudenL
learnlng.

67
I|gure 26. Adm|n|strator V|ews on the Lffects of SLLD on rofess|ona| Deve|opment and
Accountab|||ty (Ia|| 2013 Survey, 1=19)

Many admlnlsLraLors also reporLed LhaL Leachers alLered Lhelr lnsLrucLlon and/or currlcular
conLenL Lo flL Lhelr evaluaLlon goals under SLLu (llgures 26 and 27). A llLLle more Lhan one-Lhlrd
(37) of admlnlsLraLors lndlcaLed LhaL Leachers aL Lhelr schools changed whaL Lhey were
Leachlng sLudenLs ln order Lo allgn wlLh Lhe speclflc goals for Lhelr evaluaLlon. Palf (30)
lndlcaLed LhaL Leachers focused heavlly on Lhe conLenL embedded ln Lhelr sLudenL performance
goals and 33 lndlcaLed LhaL seLLlng SLCs led Leachers Lo make changes ln Lhelr Leachlng
pracLlce.
u%
Su%
2u%
4u%
1u% 1u%
S%
4S%
Su%
1u%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Stiongly Bisagiee Bisagiee Neutial Agiee Stiongly Agiee
Teacheis' summative iatings infoimeu piofessional uevelopment
Teacheis felt moie accountable foi stuuent giowth
68
I|gure 27. Adm|n|strator V|ews on the Lffects of SLLD on 1eachers' Instruct|ona| ract|ce

School leaders also welghed ln on SLLu's poLenLlal Lo lmprove Leacher pracLlce. 1he ma[orlLy
(33) agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL Lhe SLLu model wlll help Leachers lmprove Lhelr pracLlce
(1able 20). AlmosL Lhree-quarLers (74) agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL SLLu could lmprove
Leachers' pracLlce wlLh sufflclenL resources (1able 20). AlLhough we cauLlon readers due Lo Lhe
small sample slze of prlnclpal respondenLs, recall LhaL 42 responded slmllarly Lo Lhe same
lLem on Lhe Leacher survey.
1ab|e 20. Adm|n|strator V|ews on the Lffect of SLLD on 1eacher ract|ce (Ia|| 2013 Survey,
1=19)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
1be 5u moJel wlll belp teocbets
lmptove tbelt ptoctlce.
3 21 21 42 11
wltb sofflcleot tesootces, socb os
tlme ooJ stoffloq, we coo ose
5u to lmptove teocbet ptoctlce
ot tbls scbool.
11 3 11 33 21

lnLervlews corroboraLed Lhese survey flndlngs. Some prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhey observed
changes ln Leachers' pracLlces due Lo SLLu. 1wo prlnclpals ln dlfferenL dlsLrlcLs reporLed LhaL
SLLu's lnsLrucLlonal pracLlce rubrlc had helped faclllLaLe communlcaLlon beLween school
leaders and Leachers. Cne prlnclpal added LhaL he felL LhaL SLLu had helped Leachers Lo know
beLLer how Lo analyze and use daLa.
11% 11%
42%
S7%
u%
S% S%
4u%
Su%
u%
1u% 1u%
2S%
SS%
u%
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Stiongly Bisagiee Bisagiee Neutial Agiee Stiongly Agiee
Teacheis aligneu content to evaluation goals
Teacheis focuseu content on stuuent peifoimance goals
Setting SL0s leu teacheis to change theii piactice
69
A prlnclpal ln a sLruggllng school reporLed LhaL SLLu had had an lmpacL on Lhe lower
performlng Leachers ln hls school. Pe reporLed: aL a baslc level, some people for Lhe flrsL Llme
saw Lhe correlaLlon beLween sLudenL performance and lnsLrucLlon." Slmllarly, anoLher prlnclpal
percelved a hlgh degree of focus and ownershlp of sLudenL achlevemenL by Lhe Leachers. 1o
supporL Lhls asserLlon, she clLed Lhe facL LhaL u8A scores ln Lhe school demonsLraLed growLh
across Lhe board unllke any prevlous year.
Several prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Leachers learned how Lo beLLer use daLa wlLhln Lhe conLexL of
evaluaLlon. Cne prlnclpal reporLed LhaL Leachers pald helghLened aLLenLlon" Lo Lhelr daLa.
AnoLher prlnclpal reporLed LhaL Leachers sLarLed Lo undersLand SLCs and Lhe lmporLance of
havlng goals, assessmenLs, and daLa LhaL are allgned. Some Leachers ln hls school dldn'L have
daLa maLched Lo Lhelr SLCs. AL Lhe end of Lhe flrsL year, Lhe prlnclpal reporLed LhaL Leachers
reallzed Lhey needed beLLer daLa. AnoLher prlnclpal reporLed LhaL Leachers were accusLomed Lo
uslng daLa because Lhelr school had been a SlC school. Powever, under Lhe School
lmprovemenL CranL, a school wlde daLa faclllLaLor had owned" and Lracked Lhe daLa. ln
conLrasL, he recounLed, SLLu had shlfLed ownershlp of Lhe daLa Lo lndlvldual Leachers.
CLher leaders reporLed LhaL Lhey felL LhaL SLLu had noL changed lnsLrucLlon. 1eachers, Lhey
reporLed, were noL uslng daLa or assessmenLs dlfferenLly or lmprovlng Lhelr lnsLrucLlon. ln some
cases, prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhls was because Leachers had been meeLlng ln grade level
Leams and looklng aL daLa prlor Lo SLLu. 1hey belleved LhaL SLLu dld noL dlverge subsLanLlally
from prlor pracLlce. ln oLher cases, prlnclpals reporLed LhaL SLLu's laLe sLarL and lnsufflclenL
Lralnlng meanL LhaL lL had llLLle lnfluence on Lhe pracLlce of Leachers. 1hls was ampllfled ln
dlsLrlcLs wlLh mulLlple oLher lnlLlaLlves underway or ln schools wlLh admlnlsLraLor Lurnover.
MosL dlsLrlcL leaders expressed opLlmlsm LhaL SLLu would lead Lo changes ln Leachers' pracLlce.
ulLlmaLely lL wlll change Leachlng," sald one leader. She added, pracLlce hasn'L changed yeL
buL l Lhlnk lL wlll. 1hey have a helghLened awareness of Lhe componenLs of good lnsLrucLlon.
1helr awareness ls Lhere," and change, she predlcLed, would follow.
Changes |n Leaders' ract|ces
Cn average, admlnlsLraLors raLed four lndlcaLors LhaL Lhey belleved SLLu would lnfluence
pracLlce neuLrally: Lhe admlnlsLraLors we surveyed nelLher agreed nor dlsagreed, on Lhe whole,
LhaL Lhey recelved approprlaLe levels of supporL based on Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs, LhaL Lhey
recelved approprlaLe levels of recognlLlon based on Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs, LhaL Lhey felL more
pressure Lo have sLudenLs make academlc progress whlle uslng SLLu, or LhaL Lhe SLLu model ls
golng Lo help admlnlsLraLors lmprove Lhelr leadershlp pracLlce (see 1able 21).
7u
1ab|e 21. Adm|n|strator V|ews on the Cutcomes of SLLD Imp|ementat|on: Mean Scores (Ia||
2013 Survey)
93 C.l.
o Meoo Lower upper
soppott boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
17 3.47 2.84 4.10
tecoqoltloo boseJ oo my sommotlve totloq.
17 3.29 2.67 3.92
l bove felt mote ptessote to bove stoJeots
moke ocoJemlc ptoqtess sloce we beqoo
osloq 5u.
17 2.94 2.30 3.38
1be 5u moJel ls qoloq to belp
oJmlolsttotots lmptove tbelt leoJetsblp
ptoctlce.
17 3.29 2.67 3.92

uL anoLher way, school leaders were dlvlded on wheLher Lhey LhoughL SLLu could lmprove
Lhelr pracLlce. 1hlrLy percenL of school leaders agreed or sLrongly agreed LhaL SLLu ls golng Lo
help admlnlsLraLors become beLLer leaders, whlle 41 were neuLral on Lhls quesLlon and 30
dlsagreed/sLrongly dlsagreed (1able 22). AdmlnlsLraLors' dlvlded responses could be relaLed Lo
Lhelr percepLlon LhaL Lhelr evaluaLors have Lhe knowledge buL noL Lhe Llme or resources Lo
evaluaLe Lhem accuraLely. Whlle 71 of school admlnlsLraLors felL Lhelr evaluaLors possessed
Lhls knowledge, only 36 LhoughL Lhelr evaluaLors had Lhe Llme and resources Lo carry ouL
evaluaLlon as SLLu prescrlbes (1able 22).
1ab|e 22. Adm|n|strator V|ews on the Cutcomes of SLLD Imp|ementat|on: Irequency Scores
(Ia|| 2013 Survey)

SLrongly
SLrongly
Agreed
1be 5u moJel ls qoloq to belp
oJmlolsttotots lmptove tbelt
leoJetsblp ptoctlce.
18 12 41 24 6
My evolootot(s) boJ tbe
koowleJqe to evoloote me
moJel.
18 0 12 47 24
My evolootot(s) boJ tbe tlme ooJ
tesootces to evoloote me
moJel.
18 18 29 24 12

71
ln lnLervlews, school leaders reporLed sllghL changes ln Lhelr pracLlce as a resulL of parLlclpaLlng
ln SLLu. Cne prlnclpal reporLed LhaL SLLu helped her focus her progress monlLorlng wlLh
Leachers, enabllng her Lo ask Leachers abouL lndlvlduals or LargeL groups. AnoLher prlnclpal
reporLed LhaL observaLlons made hlm more aware of Lhe range of pracLlces ln hls bulldlng. Pe
sald hls "eyes were opened" Lo how hls Leachers Lhlnk. SLLu has made hlm "a beLLer observer"
and opened up many more conversaLlons wlLh Leachers abouL lnsLrucLlon, daLa, and sLudenLs.
ulsLrlcL admlnlsLraLors also reporLed LhaL SLLu had been somewhaL beneflclal Lo Lhem. Cne
asslsLanL superlnLendenL sald LhaL SLLu helped me Lo become clearer abouL whaL prlnclpals
should look for ln Lhe classroom.l've learned a loL."
Var|at|ons
ConslsLenL wlLh flndlngs presenLed ln Lhe prevlous secLlons on lmplemenLaLlon and educaLor
experlences, we found slgnlflcanL dlfferences ln Leachers' vlews. Cn average, Leachers ln
elemenLary schools and non-Lenured Leachers expressed more poslLlve vlews on SLLu's currenL
and poLenLlal effecLs on Lhelr pracLlce based on Lhelr parLlclpaLlon ln SLLu's plloL year.
!"??-%-1&-# )&%/## 7%)4-# "1 E-)&.-%#F D"-3#
1eachers reporLed slgnlflcanL dlfferences across grade levels ln Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey felL
Lhey would recelve approprlaLe levels of recognlLlon based on Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs, l
(2,409) = 4.79, p = .009 (see llgure 28), and Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey belleve LhaL wlLh sufflclenL
resources, such as Llme and sLafflng, Lhey would be able Lo use SLLu Lo lmprove Leacher
pracLlce aL Lhelr schools, l (2, 411) = 4.33, p = .014 (see llgure 29).
1ukey's posL-hoc comparlsons lndlcaLe LhaL elemenLary school Leachers (M=3.03, 93 Cl [2.88,
3.18]) belleved Lhey would recelve approprlaLe levels of recognlLlon based on Lhelr summaLlve
raLlngs more Lhan dld hlgh school Leachers (M=2.63, 93 Cl [2.46, 2.86]), p = .007. 1he
dlfferences beLween mlddle school Leachers (M=2.80, 93 Cl [2.37, 3.03]) and Leachers aL
elemenLary school and hlgh school levels were noL slgnlflcanL aL p < .03.
LlemenLary school Leachers (M=3.23, 93 Cl [3.09, 3.40]) also belleved LhaL wlLh sufflclenL
resources, such as Llme and sLafflng, Lhey would be able Lo use SLLu Lo lmprove Leacher
pracLlce aL Lhelr school more Lhan hlgh school Leachers dld (M=2.92, 93 Cl [2.73, 3.10]), p
= .018. 1he dlfference beLween mlddle school Leachers (M=3.23, 93 Cl [3.02, 3.44]) and hlgh
school Leachers was nearly sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL, wlLh p = .063. 1he dlfference beLween
elemenLary school Leachers and mlddle school Leachers was noL slgnlflcanL aL p < .03.

72
I|gure 28. Means |ot for 1eacher 8e||efs about kece|v|ng kecogn|t|on across Grade Leve|s

I|gure 29. Means |ot for 1eacher 8e||efs that SLLD Can Change ract|ce across Grade Leve|s

S.uS
2.8
2.6S
1
2
S
4
S
Teachei Beliefs that They Will Receive Recognition Baseu on Summative Rating
S.2S S.2S
2.92
1
2
S
4
S
Teachei Beliefs that SEEB Can Change Piactice
7S
Cne-way AnCvAs lndlcaLed no slgnlflcanL dlfferences across grade levels ln Lhe exLenL Lo whlch
Leachers felL Lhey would recelve approprlaLe levels of supporL based on Lhelr summaLlve raLlngs,
l (2, 411) = 1.17, p = .141, felL more accounLable for growLh ln Lhelr sLudenLs' learnlng under
SLLu Lhan ln prevlous years, l (2, 417) = 2.82, p = .061, or covered less conLenL Lhan usual ln
order Lo focus on Lhe conLenL embedded ln Lhelr sLudenL performance goals, l (2, 414) = .14, p
= .871.
!"??-%-1&-# )&%/## E-16%- ($)$6#
non-Lenured Leachers lndlcaLed more poslLlve bellefs abouL SLLu's ablllLy Lo lnfluence pracLlce
for all lndlcaLors excepL for Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey covered less conLenL Lhan usual ln order Lo
focus on Lhe conLenL embedded ln Lhelr sLudenL performance goals (see 1able 23).
1ab|e 23. D|fferences |n SLLD Imp|ementat|on Cutcomes by 1enure Status
non-1enured 1enured
o Meoo 93 Cl o Meoo 93 Cl Jf t p t
opptoptlote levels of soppott
boseJ oo my sommotlve
totloq.
80 3.44 3.23 3.63 349 3.08 2.97 3.20 427 2.62 .009 .13
opptoptlote levels of
tecoqoltloo boseJ oo my
sommotlve totloq.
78 3.10 2.89 3.32 349 2.78 2.66 2.90 423 2.37 .018 .11
l felt mote occoootoble fot
qtowtb lo my stoJeots
leotoloq ooJet 5u tboo l
JlJ lo ptevloos yeots.
80 2.91 2.67 3.16 336 2.33 2.41 2.63 121 2.79 .006 .23
l coveteJ less cooteot tboo
osool wbeo teocbloq lo otJet
to focos oo tbe cooteot
embeJJeJ lo my stoJeot
petfotmooce qools.
(kvk5u sotvey ltem)
81 3.07 2.84 3.31 331 3.02 2.89 3.14 430 0.40 .690 .02
wltb sofflcleot tesootces,
socb os tlme ooJ stoffloq, we
woolJ be oble to ose 5u to
lmptove teocbet ptoctlce ot
tbls scbool.
80 3.43 3.26 3.64 349 3.03 2.94 3.17 427 3.03 .002 .13

!"??-%-1&-# :I !"#$%"&$
Slmllar Lo our flndlngs for lmplemenLaLlon and experlence, we agaln found varlaLlons ln
parLlclpanLs' vlews on wheLher SLLu had changed educaLor pracLlce or had Lhe poLenLlal Lo do
so ln Lhe fuLure. Mean Leacher response varled slgnlflcanLly by dlsLrlcL on wheLher Lhey felL
more accounLable for sLudenL learnlng growLh under SLLu, covered less conLenL under SLLu
Lhan ln prevlous years, and felL Lhey would recelve approprlaLe supporL or recognlLlon based on
Lhelr summaLlve evaluaLlon raLlng. ulsLrlcL-level means also varled slgnlflcanLly on wheLher,
74
wlLh approprlaLe resources, SLLu would help schools lmprove Leacher pracLlce. Cn Lhe whole,
dlsLrlcLs LhaL worked on llnklng evaluaLlon wlLh professlonal developmenL ln recenL years
recorded hlgher means on Lhese lLems Lhan dld Lhelr counLerparLs wlLh less experlence ln Lhls
area.
kat|ngs
er SLLu, each educaLor recelves a summaLlve, annual performance raLlng based on scores on
Lhe 1eacher racLlce 8elaLed lndlcaLors and SLudenL CuLcomes 8elaLed lndlcaLors. ulsLrlcL
aggregaLe evaluaLlon raLlngs are reporLed Lo Lhe Commlssloner of LducaLlon by !une 30 of each
year. SummaLlve Leacher evaluaLlon raLlngs from parLlclpaLlng plloL dlsLrlcLs are presenLed ln
1able 24. uue Lo lncompleLe or mlsslng resulLs, admlnlsLraLor raLlngs were noL avallable. We
cauLlon readers agalnsL over-lnLerpreLlng Lhese daLa, as Lhey represenL scores from SLLu's plloL
year. 1wo of Lhe fourLeen plloL dlsLrlcLs dld noL submlL evaluaLlon raLlngs. Cne of Lhe
parLlclpaLlng dlsLrlcLs was able Lo reporL raLlngs for only approxlmaLely 60 of lLs Leachers. We
dld noL have access Lo dlsaggregaLed daLa, such as by school, by school level (e.g., hlgh school),
by Leacher Lenure sLaLus or sub[ecL area.
Cn average, less Lhan 1 of Leachers were raLed as below stooJotJ and 4 were raLed as
Jeveloploq ln Lhe plloL dlsLrlcLs.
3
nearly Lhree-quarLers (73) were raLed ptoflcleot and 23
were raLed as exemploty. 1hree-quarLers (9 of 12) of Lhe dlsLrlcLs reporLed no Leachers raLed as
below stooJotJ. 1here was some varlaLlon ln aggregaLe raLlngs across dlsLrlcLs, wlLh small
dlsLrlcLs sub[ecL Lo greaLer flucLuaLlon. Lxcludlng one anomalous dlsLrlcL (ulsLrlcL A), Lhe
percenLage of Leachers raLed ptoflcleot ranged beLween 36 and 92. llgure 30 presenLs Lhe
numerlcal daLa vla llne ploLs, and lndlcaLes a general paLLern of mosL Leachers (96) belng
raLed ptoflcleot or exemploty, wlLh Lhe mosL varlablllLy across dlsLrlcLs occurrlng beLween Lhese
Lwo caLegorles.

3
1hese Lwo flgures may underesLlmaLe acLual numbers because, for legal purposes, plloL dlsLrlcLs Lended Lo use
prlor evaluaLlon sysLems for Lhose Leachers prevlously performlng well below sLandard. lL ls unclear from our daLa
how many, lf any, Leachers were excluded from Lhese plloL raLlngs.
7S
1ab|e 24. Summary of 1eacher Lva|uat|on kat|ngs |n SLLD ||ot D|str|cts, 2012-
2013
J-,/3 ($)14)%4 !-2-,/+"1= >%/?"&"-1$ GK-*+,)%I
ulsLrlcL A 0 0 24 76
ulsLrlcL 8 0 28 36 17
ulsLrlcL C 0 2 63 33
ulsLrlcL u 3 3 92 0
ulsLrlcL L 0 0 83 13
ulsLrlcL l 0 0 84 16
ulsLrlcL C 0 4 89 7
ulsLrlcL P 0 1 84 13
ulsLrlcL l 0 2 39 39
ulsLrlcL ! 0 6 81 13
ulsLrlcL k <1 2 68 30
ulsLrlcL L <1 9 76 13
Ovetoll <1X 4X 7JX 2JX
noLes:

1. lncompleLe evaluaLlons (l.e., evaluaLlons where one or more componenL raLlng was reporLed as 0" or nuLL"
or lefL blank) are excluded from Lhese daLa. ln ulsLrlcL l, almosL 40 of Lhe records supplled were excluded due
Lo lncompleLe evaluaLlon daLa.
2. 1hese daLa represenL flnal raLlngs as submlLLed by Lhe dlsLrlcLs. WlLh Lhe excepLlon of lncompleLe evaluaLlons
referenced above, no addlLlonal verlflcaLlon of Lhese flnal raLlngs was performed.
3. uue Lo roundlng, row LoLals may noL sum Lo 100.

76

llnally, we classlfled ulsLrlcLs A Lhrough L by slze under Lhe caLegorles small, medlum, and large.
Small dlsLrlcLs evaluaLed up Lo 100 Leachers, medlum dlsLrlcLs evaluaLed beLween 101 and 230
Leachers, and large dlsLrlcLs evaluaLed more Lhan 230 Leachers. As llgure 31 shows, Lhere was
no dlscernlble relaLlonshlp beLween slze of dlsLrlcL and summaLlve raLlngs among Lhese Lwelve
plloL dlsLrlcLs. 1hls flndlng ls far from generallzable, however, glven Lhe small sample slze.

u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Below Stanuaiu Beveloping Pioficient Exemplaiy
Bistiict A
Bistiict B
Bistiict C
Bistiict B
Bistiict E
Bistiict F
Bistiict u
Bistiict B
Bistiict I
Bistiict }
Bistiict K
Bistiict L

I|gure 30. L|ne |ots of Aggregate 1eacher Lva|uat|on kat|ngs |n SLLD ||ot D|str|cts,
2012-2013
77
I|gure 31. L|ne |ots of Average 1eacher Lva|uat|on kat|ngs 8y D|str|ct S|ze |n SLLD ||ot
D|str|cts, 2012-2013

1he aggregaLe resulLs above are conslsLenL wlLh survey and lnLervlew daLa, where dlsLrlcL and
school leaders reporLed LhaL Lhe ma[orlLy of Leachers were raLed proflclenL. rlnclpals reporLed
LhaL ln mosL cases Lhey were noL surprlsed by Leachers' flnal raLlngs. ln lnsLances when Lhey
were surprlsed, speclallsLs whom Lhe prlnclpals vlewed as hlghly skllled had seL hlgh goals
based on a very small sample slze and were noL able Lo meeL Lhelr goals.
rlnclpals reporLed LhaL Leachers generally were noL dlsmayed by Lhelr raLlngs. Agaln, Leachers
who seL exLremely hlgh goals LhaL Lhey were noL able Lo achleve were Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhls rule.
MosL leaders reporLed LhaL SLLu raLlngs allgned wlLh Lhelr lmpllclL sense of Leachers'
performance. Powever, more Leachers were raLed proflclenL" or developlng" Lhan prlor
evaluaLlon ouLcomes would suggesL. rlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu had
caused boLh Leachers and prlnclpals Lo recallbraLe Lhelr undersLandlngs of Lhe meanlng of as
one prlnclpal recounLed, good, proflclenL, and effecLlve." 1hls callbraLlon requlred Leachers Lo
come Lo Lerms wlLh lower raLlngs Lhan Lhey had recelved ln Lhe pasL. 1haL belng sald, one
superlnLendenL predlcLed LhaL a loL of people wlll score proflclenL because lL's a plloL, slow roll
ouL and people are gun shy [abouL raLlng Leachers low]."
ln some cases prlnclpals reporLed LhaL SLLu raLlngs conformed Lo hls sense of Leachers'
performance ln Lhe area of classroom managemenL buL were lower Lhan he had expecLed ln Lhe
area of lnsLrucLlon. 1hls prlnclpal reporLed LhaL Lhe sLandards for 'exemplary' were hlgher Lhan
he was accusLomed Lo. Several oLher prlnclpals reporLed LhaL Lhe SLLu rubrlc enabled Lhem Lo
raLe low-performlng Leachers accuraLely whereas Lhelr prlor evaluaLlon sysLem falled Lo anchor
Lhelr evldence Lo an exLernal sLandard (Lhe rubrlc) and, as a resulL, Lhey felL less [usLlfled ln
asslgnlng a low buL accuraLe raLlng.
u%
1u%
2u%
Su%
4u%
Su%
6u%
7u%
8u%
9u%
1uu%
Below
Stanuaiu
Beveloping Pioficient Exemplaiy
small uistiicts
meuium uistiicts
laige uistiicts
78
WhaL wlll resulL from Lhe raLlngs? Leaders menLloned LhaL Lhey plan Lo dlfferenLlaLe
professlonal developmenL ln Lhe comlng year. SLLu raLlngs wlll also be used Lo ldenLlfy who ls
golng Lo be a complemenLary evaluaLor or be placed ln a quasl-leadershlp" poslLlon. ulsLrlcL
leaders ln one dlsLrlcL sald LhaL Lhese Leacher leadershlp poslLlons are necessary for our hlgh
flyers, for reLalnlng Lhese people. We need someLhlng dlfferenL for our hlgh flyers." LasLly,
dlsLrlcL leaders reporLed LhaL Lhey wlll use raLlngs Lo ldenLlfy Leachers whose performance
should be more closely monlLored ln Lhe comlng year.
We offer one flnal noLe on how Lhe plloL raLlngs daLa lnLerface wlLh Llme demands of
conducLlng observaLlons, and how Lhey can be used by admlnlsLraLors for plannlng purposes.
SLLu guldellnes requlre Leachers raLed as below stooJotJ or Jeveloploq Lo recelve Lhree formal
and up Lo flve lnformal observaLlons per year. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of Leachers who scored
ptoflcleot or exemploty should recelve a comblnaLlon of Lhree formal ln-class
observaLlons/revlews of pracLlce (of whlch one musL be a formal ln-class observaLlon). llrsL and
second-year Leachers should recelve Lhree formal and Lhree lnformal observaLlons. 1he
percenLages wlll change across raLlng caLegorles from year Lo year, and from school Lo school,
buL admlnlsLraLors can use prlor year's raLlngs daLa Lo roughly esLlmaLe Lhe evaluaLlon schedule
for Lhe followlng year.
C|os|ng kemarks
ln summary, Lhere ls some evldence LhaL Leachers and admlnlsLraLors reporLed changed
pracLlce as a resulL of SLLu. LlemenLary school and non-Lenured Leachers were sLaLlsLlcally
more llkely Lo reporL LhaL SLLu had resulLed ln changes Lo Lhelr pracLlce or had Lhe poLenLlal Lo
do so ln Lhe fuLure. School admlnlsLraLors reporLed mlxed vlews on Lhe exLenL Lo whlch SLLu
had changed Lhelr pracLlce or would do so ln Lhe fuLure. Across plloL dlsLrlcLs, 73 of Leachers
were raLed as ptoflcleot and abouL one-quarLer were consldered exemploty. Less Lhan one
percenL fell lnLo Lhe below stooJotJ caLegory and abouL 4 were ldenLlfled as Jeveloploq.
1here was some varlaLlon ln Lhe raLlngs across dlsLrlcLs.

79
kecommendat|ons

We gaLhered exLenslve daLa from mulLlple sLakeholders aL Lhree sLages ln Lhe lmplemenLaLlon
of SLLu's plloL program. 8ased on analyses of Lhese daLa, we recommend LhaL Lhe SLaLe
ueparLmenL of LducaLlon carry ouL Lhe followlng:
1. rov|de add|t|ona| opportun|t|es for a|| educators to |earn about SLLD. 1here ls a need for
addlLlonal professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles for all educaLors wlLh respecL Lo SLLu.
rofesslonal learnlng needs fall lnLo Lwo caLegorles: one ls beLLer undersLandlng and
lmplemenLlng Lhe Lechnlcal aspecLs of SLLu (seLLlng goals, conducLlng observaLlons, and
provldlng posL-observaLlon feedback) and Lhe oLher ls lmproved developmenL of educaLors
(by provldlng lndlvlduallzed and LargeLed professlonal developmenL). We sLrongly
recommend LhaL boLh admlnlsLraLors ooJ Leachers recelve Lhls Lralnlng, raLher Lhan relylng
on a Lraln-Lhe-Lralner model as was Lhe case ln Lhe plloL year of SLLu.

2. 8u||d the sk|||s of eva|uators, |n part|cu|ar. 1eacher survey and lnLervlew daLa lndlcaLed
subsLanLlal varlablllLy ln Lhe percelved sklll level of evaluaLors. 1hls varlance occurred wlLhln
and across dlsLrlcLs, and even wlLhln schools. Such a flndlng polnLs Lo Lhe need for
admlnlsLraLors Lo develop and reflne Lhelr supervlsory skllls. We suggesL Lhere be processes
for ldenLlfylng evaluaLors ln need of lmprovemenL and Lhen offerlng speclallzed Lralnlng Lo
Lhese lndlvlduals. 1he SuL, along wlLh professlonal organlzaLlons and reglonal consorLla,
should provlde professlonal developmenL Lo evaluaLors ln uslng Lhe CC1 8ubrlc for LffecLlve
1eachlng, conducLlng formal and lnformal observaLlons, and provldlng verbal and wrlLLen
feedback. 1hese professlonal learnlng opporLunlLles are crlLlcal Lo Lhe success of any
Leacher evaluaLlon reform.

3. Increase the use of comp|ementary observers. LducaLors reporLed LhaL SLLu places
slgnlflcanL Llme demands on school admlnlsLraLors. We recommend LhaL dlsLrlcLs conslder
lncludlng complemenLary observers wlLhln Lhelr Leacher evaluaLlon sysLems. lncludlng
complemenLary evaluaLors noL only reduces Lhe Llme demands on prlnclpals and asslsLanL
prlnclpals, buL also enhances Lhe professlonal role of Leachers by provldlng addlLlonal
leadershlp roles for Leachers. under Lhe monlker of peer asslsLance and revlew, such
sysLems have been adopLed by several hlgh-proflle dlsLrlcLs ln oLher sLaLes (e.g. ClnclnnaLl,
MonLgomery CounLy, Mu) and have shown promlslng ouLcomes ln Lerms of Leacher
performance and sLudenL learnlng. 1he SuL can help by sharlng effecLlve models wlLh Lhose
ln Lhe fleld and provldlng Lhe requlred Lralnlng for complemenLary observers.

4. rov|de add|t|ona| gu|dance on Student Learn|ng Cb[ect|ves and Ind|cators of Academ|c
Growth and Deve|opment. As SLLu has begun ln earnesL, we recommend LhaL Lhe SuL
conLlnue Lo provlde clear guldance on Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon of valld lACu LargeLs. 1he SMA81
goals heurlsLlc ls helpful alLhough does noL dlcLaLe whaL performance level or sLudenL
growLh LargeL ls boLh aLLalnable" and sufflclenLly challenglng. Some Leachers or
admlnlsLraLors are selecLlng far Loo challenglng LargeLs whlle oLhers are chooslng far Loo
8u
easy. 1he seLLlng of lACu growLh LargeLs ls ln mosL cases lnherenLly arblLrary. Should 100
of sLudenLs score a 70 on an exam or should 70 of sLudenLs score aL 100? lf half Lhe
sLudenLs fall below a cerLaln performance level aL Lhe beglnnlng of Lhe year, whaL
percenLage should reasonably be expecLed Lo meeL lL by Lhe end of Lhe year? lurLher, whaL
ls meanL by growLh dlffers based on Lhe measures avallable (e.g., conLrasL pre and posL
measures from a verLlcally-scaled assessmenL wlLh sLaLlc measures of performance on a
locally developed LesL). 1here are checks and balances bullL lnLo Lhe sysLem, such as Lhe
mld-year check-lns, LhaL are lnLended Lo provlde aL leasL one opporLunlLy Lo ad[usL growLh
goals. Powever, Lhe selecLlon of lACu LargeLs ls an area LhaL deserves close aLLenLlon as Lhe
SLLu model evolves.

3. C|ar|fy and contextua||ze SLLD to d|str|ct and schoo| personne|. 1eachers ln plloL dlsLrlcLs
expressed LrepldaLlon over Lhe number and magnlLude of new reform lnlLlaLlves Lhey faced,
and vlewed Leacher evaluaLlon as addlng one more Lhlng" Lo Lhelr already busy agenda. lL
would be helpful lf educaLlonal leaders and pollcy makers demonsLraLed how educaLor
evaluaLlon lnLerfaces wlLh Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of oLher ma[or lnlLlaLlves such as Lhe
Common Core SLaLe SLandards and SmarLer 8alanced AssessmenLs. Moreover, make clear
Lo dlsLrlcLs any flexlblllLy Lhey have wlLh regard Lo lmplemenLlng SLLu or Lhe Core
8equlremenLs. AdmlnlsLraLors are lnLerpreLlng SLLu wlLh more rlgldlLy Lhan Lhe model
acLually requlres.

6. D|ssem|nate prom|s|ng pract|ces. We recommend a coordlnaLed efforL by SuL and/or
reglonal dlsLrlcL consorLla Lo ldenLlfy and dlssemlnaLe promlslng pracLlces" relaLlve Lo SLLu
and educaLor evaluaLlon. ConnecLlcuL educaLors represenL an exLraordlnarlly rlch source of
lngenulLy and LalenL and should be acLlvely engaged ln Lhe conLlnuous lmprovemenL of
evaluaLlon as Lhey adapL Lhe model Lo Lhelr own dlsLrlcL conLexLs and explore new
processes. ln some seLLlngs we found evldence of schools uslng SLLu Lo promoLe deep
conversaLlons abouL Leachlng and learnlng. lor example, one school plloLed Lhe use of vldeo
cameras Lo faclllLaLe Lhe evaluaLlon of Leachers. 1eachers reporLed LhaL Lhls approach
reduced Lhelr anxleLy Lo perform" ln fronL a llve observer and faclllLaLed conversaLlons
wlLh Lhelr evaluaLor by helplng Lhem undersLand Lhe evaluaLor's feedback.

7. rov|de add|t|ona| ass|stance to |ow-perform|ng d|str|cts to support SLLD's
|mp|ementat|on. We belleve LhaL Lhe sLaLe should provlde addlLlonal asslsLance Lo low-
performlng dlsLrlcLs Lo supporL Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of SLLu. 1hls recommendaLlon ls
supporLed by our flndlng LhaL lower-performlng dlsLrlcLs wlLh mulLlple lnlLlaLlves underway
encounLered parLlcular challenges ln lmplemenLlng SLLu. rovldlng addlLlonal supporL and
asslsLance Lo Lhese dlsLrlcLs may help Lhem lnLegraLe SLLu wlLh oLher lnlLlaLlves and
lncrease Lhe chance LhaL Lhe reform spurs poslLlve change ln Lhelr schools and classrooms.

8. Cont|nue to track SLLD's |mp|ementat|on and effects. We recommend LhaL Lhe sLaLe
conLlnue Lo gaLher daLa from educaLors aL regular lnLervals Lo lnform Lhe conLlnuous
lmprovemenL of Lhe model. ln addlLlon, we recommend Lracklng Lhe model's uLlllLy ln raLlng
81
Lhe annual performance of educaLors and admlnlsLraLors. Speclflcally, we recommend LhaL
Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween SLLu and sLudenL achlevemenL be examlned.

Neag Seed Report 1 1 14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neag Seed Report 1 1 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

!" $%&'(&)+" +, )-. /'+) 012'.1.")&)*+"

You might also like