Research indicates the number one influence on student learning in a school is the teacher. Therefore, the 2017 ESSA legislation requires states to report if there is equity in the distribution of quality teachers in the state between high poverty and high minority schools and the rest of the schools. To determine equity, each state must report to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) a comparison of the number of “ineffective” teachers between high poverty schools and low poverty schools and high minority schools and low minority schools (Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act Sec. 2104. [20 U.S.C. 6614] Reporting). North Dakota is not going to break out the report by teachers, but rather by teaching. Using ineffective teaching data based on the evaluation models, the NDDPI will determine an ineffective teacher equivalent.
Contact the Office of School Approval & Opportunity at (701) 328-2755 for additional information.
Q: Why are school districts expected to report teacher evaluation information to the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (NDDPI)?
A: Research indicates the number one influence on student learning in a school is the teacher. Therefore, the 2017 ESSA legislation requires states to report if there is equity in distribution of quality teachers in the state between high poverty and high minority schools and the rest of the schools. To determine equity, each state must report to the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) a comparison of the number of “ineffective” teachers between high poverty schools and low poverty schools and high minority schools and low minority schools.
North Dakota is not going to report by teachers, but rather by teaching. Using ineffective teaching data based on the evaluation models, the NDDPI will determine an ineffective teacher equivalent.
Q: Why has North Dakota decided to report out on “ineffective teaching” versus “ineffective teachers”?
A: North Dakota’s belief is that the primary purpose of the teacher and principal evaluation system is to provide growth. Putting a high level of emphasis on the rating of the teacher would undermine the primary purpose of the teacher supervision process. Research is clear, the higher the stakes on a rating, the greater the chance the rating will be less honest. Having teachers listed as ineffective would create high stakes on ratings and negatively impact the focus on growth within the evaluation system.
Q: How will North Dakota determine the number of “ineffective” teaching to report to USED?
A: Ineffective teaching will be considered any rating of any element or component on any of the aligned teacher evaluation models at the rating Level One or Level Zero.
- In the Danielson Model, Level One is defined as “Unsatisfactory”.
- In the Marshall Model, Level One is defined as “Does Not Meet Standards”.
- In the Marzano Model, Level One is defined as “Beginning” and Level Zero is defined as “Not Using”.
- In the McREL Model, Level One is defined as “Developing” and Level Zero is defined as “Not Demonstrated”.
Ineffective Teaching Formula and Example
- Number of teachers rated for the year: 20
- Total number of elements implemented and rated during the school year on certified teachers: 40
- Number of teachers rated multiplied by number of elements rated equals Total Possible Ratings: 20 X 40 = 800
- Number of elements rated at the Level One for all teachers evaluated: 48
- Number of Level One Ratings/Total Possible Ratings = Percent of Level One Ratings 48/800 = 6%
- Percent of Level One Ratings multiplied by Total Number of Teachers = Teacher Equivalent Number:
6% X 20 = 1.2 teacher equivalents
Q: Should all the elements/components be recorded for this purpose? Some elements/components are related to professional responsibilities, and not directly to classroom performance.
A: Yes. While professional responsibilities may not always be directly related to impact on classroom performance, they do impact student learning indirectly and should be counted the same as the elements related to classroom instruction.
Q: Teacher Attendance is one of the elements in the Marshall Model. Should it be counted as one of the elements in the total possible ratings and in the Level One rating?
A: Yes. Teachers presence in the classroom have a direct impact on student learning and should be counted the same as every other element.
Q: How can there be a comparison between different teacher evaluation models in the state?
A: Level One performance in every model is considered the lowest level and not meeting standards. Some models use a zero score. The zero scores should be included when counting Level One ratings. For example, if a teacher has one rating of Level Zero and two ratings of Level One, the total Level One count would be 3.
Q: Will this data be reported out on the local school ESSA dashboard?
A: No. This data will be reported at the state level only. It will not be reported on the school ESSA dashboard.
Q: Will data be collected on the percentage of teachers who are rated as “ineffective” by school for state purposes and published?
A: No. The number of ineffective teaching elements/components will be collected rather than the number of ineffective teachers.
Q: Is the data reported by school or school district?
A: This data is collected at the school level.
Q: When does this data get collected and how?
A: The report is opened in mid-March every year and closes on June 30. To access the report, log into STARS > Click the ‘Personnel’ folder, and then click ‘Teacher Effectiveness.’
Q: Will data be collected on the percent of teaching at Levels Two, Three, and Four?
A: Yes. Data on all evaluation levels will be collected to assist with professional development planning. In addition, there are advantages for schools/districts to have conversations on areas of strength and areas for improvement. However, only the Level One and Zero data will be reported to the USDE.
Q: Will the data be collected by the element/component level, indicating which areas are the highest and which are the lowest for schools?
A: No. However, this might provide valuable data to school districts, REAs, and the state for professional development purposes if this data is collected and aggregated to the state level by the different evaluation models.
Q: Will this data be collected on principals?
A: No, not at the present time. School districts are encouraged to collect this data to make decisions at the local level.
Q: What are the requirements under ESSA for teacher reporting?
A: The Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act states each state must describe how low-income and minority children are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers, and the measures that will be used to evaluate and publicly report this data [ESEA section 111(g)(1)(B)]. Per the USDE approval letter (September 1, 2017 and January 8, 2019), the North Dakota ESSA plan describes a plan to collect the data necessary to meet this requirement for ineffective teachers.
Q: What is considered a high poverty school?
A: Title I definition is used to identify a high poverty school, which is the percent of free and reduced students at or above 40%.
Q: How does this fit with Cognia?
A: Within the Cognia accreditation process, Standard 1.6, Level Four* states the data from the supervision and evaluation process will be used to inform professional practice. Having a system to collect all the ratings to provide an overall picture of the teaching staff provides the data that can provide direction for professional development.
*Level Four: The institution has written supervision and evaluation processes for staff members that include specific criteria and models for effective performance and use the results to inform and improve professional practice and student performance.
If you have questions regarding this document, please contact the Office of School Approval & Opportunity at (701) 328-2755.