i

Executive Summary

The 2010–2011 academic year was remarkable in numerous ways. It would be inappropriate to try and

list them all. Nonetheless, some highlights make the point. For instance, the historic vote by the citizens

of Memphis to surrender the MCS Charter captured our attention for months and the aftermath continues.

Still, Booker T. Washington remained focused, got its work done, and became the heartthrob of MCS

when its work captured the attention and presence of President Barack Obama—a historic moment of a

different kind and magnitude. Our graduation rate for the 2009–2010 academic year was 70.5%, the best

of all urban districts in the United States; the data of the Memphis Police Department informs that our

schools are safe; our MCS Prep Schools graduated 582 students whose divergence had them destined for

a different reality; White Station Middle had students and their school acclaimed for their prowess in

science; MCS got ―As‖ for writing in grades 5, 8 and 11, a continuation of excellence in this content area;

172 of our teachers were selected by their peers to be Prestige Award winners; a delegation of our student

envoys represented MCS at an invitation-only youth summit in Washington, D.C.; over 10,000 citizens

participated in ThinkShow!; and ArtsFest slogged through rain and mud with every arts organization in

Memphis to break new ground; over 1,000 MCS student earned college credit through our Dual

Enrollment Program—the largest of its kind in the country; and many of our school had data that revealed

significant growth in student performance at multiple grade levels.

The underbelly of the 2010–2011 academic year has to be our failure to make AYP—neither did Shelby

County Schools or the State of Tennessee. Despite our AYP target, the MCS TVAAS data tells us a

different story. We had dramatic improvements in mathematics in grades 3–8; dramatic gains in reading

in grades 6–8; significant improvements in science in grades 6 and 7; improvements in Algebra I have

stimulated requests to share approach; and 11th grade writing scores continue to impress.

There is momentum in MCS that requires each of us to do our best to sustain it. This retrospective is a

testimony to what we can do when we do not submit to the distractions of poverty, politics, and assaults

on public education. We can do what we have done and more.

Irving Hamer, Jr.

Deputy Superintendent of Academic Operations, Technology, and Innovation

ii

Author’s Note

The present work is the second installment of a series of case studies documenting the implementation of

Memphis City Schools‘ teacher effectiveness reform. The first installment was a comprehensive account

of the conditions of Memphis City Schools that warranted district-wide reform, particularly in the area of

teacher effectiveness. The Year One (2009–2010) case study also reported early planning that laid the

foundation for strategies that have the potential to transform the entire school district.

The Year Two (2010–2011) case study chronicles implementation of teacher effectiveness reform as

dictated by the four strategies that mandate that we: 1) create a common, agreed-upon definition of

effective teaching; 2) make smarter decisions about who teaches our students; 3) better support, utilize,

and compensate teachers; and 4) improve school culture and climate to foster effective teaching. This is

an account of the preparation to move from planning to execution, and therefore, is designed to expand

the context of reform in a way that provides a record of implementation with emphasis on our early

attempts to pilot initiatives and lay the foundation for full implementation of strategies in years to come.

More specifically, this iteration of our story of reform reflects concrete efforts to move from planning to

implementation and continue to develop strategic and tactical plans to bring our work to scale district-

wide. Unlike the previous case study, this document signals the increasing prominence of strategies

related to policy, community advocacy, and communications that bolster our reform efforts beyond the

four core strategies mentioned above.

I remain committed to function in a participant-observer role to provide an insider or outsider point of

view where appropriate. Similar to the first iteration of documented implementation, you will find that I

continue to write in both first and third person, depending on my perspective of a particular aspect of the

work. I intend to depict the realities of reform that equally resonate with those who are hearing about our

work for the first time as with those who are closest to implementation.

Now, more than ever, we are looking to our thought partners and stakeholders to impart a critical

appraisal of our work as we embark on an educational landscape that is unknown to many and fairly new

to others. We invite you to carefully read through, reflect on, and react to our course of action to date.

Kristin M. Walker, PhD

TEI Archivist

iii

Table of Contents

Strategy No. 1: Define and Measure Effective Teaching ............................................................................ 1

Context ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Implementation and Findings ................................................................................................................... 3

Execute on the objectives of the Gates Research Plan (MET project) .................................................. 3

Develop and implement each component of the TEM .......................................................................... 5

Conduct intensive training of MCS teachers and principals to improve awareness of value-added

metrics ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 15

Exhibit #1: Tennessee Teacher Evaluation Model: 2011-2012 School Year ........................................ 18

Exhibit #2: Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM) .............................................................................. 19

Exhibit #3: Tripod Survey Dimensions and Sample Questions ............................................................. 20

Strategy No. 2: Make Better Decisions about Who Teaches ...................................................................... 21

Context .................................................................................................................................................... 21

Implementation and Findings ................................................................................................................. 23

Improve recruitment and hiring of ―high- potential‖ teachers through partnership with TNTP ......... 23

Better coordinate and leverage outside partner-ships that recruit and place ―high-potential‖ teachers

in MCS ................................................................................................................................................ 27

Raise the bar and improve the process for granting tenure ................................................................. 27

Increase the retention of effective teachers, particularly in early in their careers ............................... 28

Increase the turnover of our most ineffective teachers ....................................................................... 29

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 32

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 32

Exhibit #4: Smarter Decisions About Who Teaches: Staffing Progress to Date ................................... 34

Exhibit #5: Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches: Evaluation Progress ............................................ 35

iv

Exhibit #6: Teacher Absences during the 2009-2010 School Year ....................................................... 36

Strategy No. 3: Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers ........................................................... 37

Context .................................................................................................................................................... 37

Implementation and Findings ................................................................................................................. 38

Improve the teacher evaluation process .............................................................................................. 39

Connect professional support opportunities to individual need .......................................................... 41

Create new and differentiated career paths ......................................................................................... 47

Implement a new base compensation structure ................................................................................... 47

Strategically place the best teachers where they are needed most ...................................................... 49

Cluster ―high-potential‖ teacher recruits in schools with the most high-need students ...................... 49

Build a service oriented culture in the district toward teachers .......................................................... 49

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 50

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 50

Exhibit #7: Spring 2011 Reflective Practice Pilots ................................................................................ 52

Exhibit #8: 2011 Survey Results on Teacher Support ........................................................................... 53

Strategy No. 4: Improve the Surrounding Context to Foster Effective Teaching ....................................... 54

Context .................................................................................................................................................... 54

Implementation & Findings .................................................................................................................... 55

Principal Leadership Capacity ............................................................................................................ 55

Improve school culture and climate .................................................................................................... 56

Develop a new technology platform ................................................................................................... 58

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 59

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 59

Other Strategies Related to the Success of TEI .......................................................................................... 61

Context .................................................................................................................................................... 61

Implementation & Findings .................................................................................................................... 62

v

Influence and track policies to support TEI ........................................................................................ 62

Develop communications strategy around TEI ................................................................................... 63

Build community advocacy around TEI ............................................................................................. 64

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 65

Ongoing Issues & Next Steps ................................................................................................................. 65

Enablers of Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 66

Barriers to Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 68

References ................................................................................................................................................... 70

Resources .................................................................................................................................................... 71

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 72

Department of Teacher Talent and Effectiveness Directory ....................................................................... 73

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

1

Strategy No. 1: Define and Measure

Effective Teaching

The foundational strategy of the Teacher

Effectiveness Initiative (TEI) is to create a

common, agreed-upon definition of effective

teaching. At the center of this strategy is

Memphis City Schools‘ (MCS) work to

understand what effective teaching is from both

conceptual and empirical lenses: MCS‘

participation in the Measures of Effective

Teaching (MET)1 Project and the development

of the Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM), a

multidimensional measure of teacher quality and

performance. The TEI Case Study 20102

provided only a cursory explanation of the MET

project to set the stage for a broader discussion

about the MCS approach to defining and

measuring teacher effectiveness. The alignment

of the research project with the District‘s work

to develop a fair, objective measure of teacher

effectiveness has since become more apparent,

and, therefore, priority. Accordingly, a more

robust description of the MET project is

provided here to illustrate the importance of the

1 The MET project is a two-year national research

project, supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation, which is designed to identify measures

of effective teaching.

2 Walker, K.M. (2010). Case Study 2010: The Teacher

Effectiveness Initiative.

integration of the project into the development

of the TEM.

Context

MCS‘ participation in the MET national

research project was jump started in March

2010. MCS successfully executed the first year

of the MET project when we recruited 447

teachers in 61 schools to participate. MET

participants completed 94% (N = 2,384)

successful video captures of teaching in the span

of only three months. In addition to the video

captures, MET teachers completed a hard-

pressed schedule for data collection. Data in-

cluded measures of students‘ performance on

State standardized supplemental assessments;

teachers‘ content knowledge; students‘ percep-

tions of the classroom environment; and teach-

ers‘ perceptions of the working conditions and

support.

During the first year of implementation, MET

researchers judged Memphis an exemplar

project site by the MET researchers for

implementation because of our ability to engage

a large number of teachers and get so much done

in a short amount of time. Likewise, the original

MCS project management team3 was lauded for

their capacity to effectively manage schools and

participants and to ensure that project require-

ments were met. Members of the TEI cross-

functional management team agree that the

successful implementation was due, in part, to

the singular focus on the work and the ultimate

3 The MET project management team for the

first year of the MET (2009–2010) project included

Tequilla Banks, Dr. Rorie Harris, Donna James, and

Monica Jordan.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

2

follow through and delivery on what the team

set out to do. More importantly, teachers‘ feed-

back indicates that they are generally excited

about the opportunities that come with partici-

pating in the research project, particularly their

opportunity to engage themselves and their

students in the reflective experience. Given the

success of the MET project and its link to a

multidimensional measure of effective teaching,

it most logically follows that we would realize

similar progress in the development of the TEM.

All of the Year One (2009–2010) targets for the

development of the TEM were met. Data sets

(e.g., Mathematica value-added data, Praxis/

NTE4 scores, Tripod and Teacher Working

Conditions surveys) for all components of the

measure were secured and aggregated for initial

testing to determine relationships among these

data, especially their correlations with student

achievement. (Recall that the aforementioned

data sets reflect what is accessible at this time

and have been utilized an early approach for

understanding the relationships that exist among

dimensions of the measure.) We have relied on

Mathematica Policy Research (MPR)5 value-

added data in the absence of the State‘s value-

added data (i.e., TVAAS6) in a format that the

District can use in analyses needed for the TEM.

According to the Tennessee Department of

4 National Teacher Exam

5 Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) is the source

of value-added data for the Effective Practice

Incentive Community (EPIC) program in MCS.

Additional information about MPR and the EPIC

program are available at www.nlns.org.

6 TVAAS is an acronym for Tennessee Value-Added

Assessment System.

Education‘s website7, TVAAS is ―a statistical

analysis of achievement data that reveals

academic growth over time for students and

groups of students, such as those in a grade level

or in a school. TVAAS is a tool that gives

feedback to school leaders and teachers on

student progress and assesses the influence of

schooling on that progress. It allows districts to

follow student achievement over time and

provides schools with a longitudinal view of

student performance. TVAAS provides valuable

information for teams of teachers to inform

instructional decisions. TVAAS is not an

additional student test, but a useful tool to help

districts make data-driven decisions.”

Praxis/NTE scores continue to be the only

available measures of teacher content knowledge

and pedagogy. The MET project is supposed to

begin a pilot of teacher content knowledge

assessments in the second year of

implementation. However, it is unclear whether

the level of analyses that come from the research

project will be useful for the purposes of the

TEM. The Teacher Evaluation Working Group

identified three observation rubrics (i.e., TAP,

D.C. Impact, and a revised Tennessee

Framework for Evaluation8) to be field tested for

further development of the TEM. The Tripod

and TWC surveys were administered district-

wide at the end of 2009–2010 to collect

stakeholder perceptions from students and

teachers.

7 Additional information is available at

http://tn.gov/education/assessment/test_results.sht

ml.

8 The Teacher Evaluation Working Group revised the

Tennessee Framework for Evaluation during their

summer 2010 retreat to prepare for the observation

rubric field test.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

3

Year Two (2010–2011) milestones reflect plans

to continue participation in the MET project as

well as to finalize development of a measure of

teacher effectiveness for roll-out for August

2011. The marriage between these two

initiatives is important for MCS because we

intend to leverage the MET project findings to

refine and inform the TEM. The chief initiative

for this strategy is to:

Develop specific tools and

implementation strategies for each of the

major components of the TEM (i.e.,

growth in student learning, observation

of teacher practice, stakeholder

perception, and teacher content

knowledge and pedagogy).

Implementation and Findings

Execute on the objectives of the Gates

Research Plan (MET project)

The MET project is in the second year of

implementation and is still on course with efforts

to identify and understand elements of effective

teaching. Since the start of implementation, the

MET team has undergone personnel changes

that should be noted here. When Tequilla Banks

was instituted as the Executive Director of the

Department of Teacher Talent and Effectiveness

(DTTE)9 in July 2010, Monica Jordan (former

research analyst in the TEM office) assumed the

position of the MET Coordinator. Two research

analysts, Anasa Franklin and Carole Anderson,

were hired to assist with implementation for the

remainder of the program year.

9 The Department of Teacher Talent and

Effectiveness was formerly known as the Office of

Teacher Talent and Effectiveness. The designation

changed after Superintendent Cash’s reorganization

of Memphis City Schools in September 2010.

This year, approximately 250 (of 447) teachers

in 59 (of 61) schools are continuing their

participation in the MET project. The teacher

attrition is likely the result of changes related to

time commitments, class schedules, and staffing

adjustments in the schools. Despite this attrition,

implementation of the MET research continues

in the same manner as the previous year in that

video-captured observations of practice,

stakeholder percep-tions, and teacher content

knowledge remain key points of measurement.

The randomization of students to teachers is an

added dimension to the methodology for the

current year. Students were randomly assigned

to MET teachers to explore whether students‘

teacher assignments influence their achievement.

The MET researchers provide a clear rationale

for the importance of the randomization

component of implementation: ―The only way to

control for all the ways in which students differ

is through random as-assignment, so teachers

participating in the MET project have signed up

as groups of three or more colleagues working in

the same school, same grade, and same subjects"

(pg. 11)10

.

I attended a November 2010 MET convening in

Washington, D.C, which was of particular inter-

est because it was slated as the meeting where

Year One preliminary results would be pre-

sented to other research sites11

. Specifically, the

10

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Working

with Teachers to Develop Fair and Reliable Measures

of Effective Teaching. Available at

www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/

met-framing-paper.pdf.

11 The following school districts are participants in

the MET national research project: Charlotte-

Mecklenburg Schools, Dallas Independent School

District, Denver Public Schools, Hillsborough County

Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and New York

City Department of Education.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

4

goals were as follows: 1) to understand prelim-

inary findings; 2) to discuss potential impli-

cations of preliminary findings for the districts;

3) to strategize about communication with

stakeholders; and 4) to understand districts‘

plans for using videos after the study. I joined

our MET and TEM teams in an all-day session

with site updates, methodology (i.e., video scor-

ing and software), preliminary findings, and next

steps for the MET project.

It was apparent that the implementation and

application of the MET project intersected at

various points for each of the school districts.

Each project team had a distinct focus on aspects

of teaching and learning that reflected the most

salient issues of teacher effectiveness in their

districts. Whereas some teams focused on in-

tegrating the MET project into plans for pro-

viding professional development experiences for

teachers and administrators, other districts antic-

ipated using the learnings from the MET project

to inform career development and decisions for

teachers. (As stated earlier, MCS intends to use

what is learned from the MET project to inform

our development of a new measure of teacher

effectiveness). Our team also used this oppor-

tunity to talk about where our participation in

the MET project has particularly advanced the

development of the measure in the area of video

observations.

I came away with a new perspective of our work

as it stands and going forward. MCS, along with

the other project sites, is at the vanguard of

teacher effectiveness reform. MCS cannot only

learn from its own implementation of the MET

project, but from the work of other districts

available for adaptation to a Memphis model.

Preliminary findings from the first year of the

MET project were released in December 2010.

A brief summary of findings is presented here to

provide context and some justification for

building a new measure of teacher effectiveness

for MCS teachers.

The MET researchers stated that MCS‘ data

were not included in the preliminary findings

because scores from our State tests were not

available for analyses; the release of these scores

was delayed due to changes in State standards

and standardized tests. However, there is still

something to be taken from the findings

presented in the report to enhance the early

development of the TEM. Preliminary results

from the MET project shed some light on

specific indices of effective teaching. The

current discussion about MET preliminary

findings is not meant to be extensive, since a

more detailed account can be found in the

official research report12

. However, this

discussion is intended to present the findings

that are related to components of the TEM. Ac-

cordingly, some early findings suggest that:

Teachers who lead students to achieve-

ment gains in one year or in one class

tend to do so in other years and other

classes; and

Student perceptions of a teacher‘s weak-

nesses and strengths are consistent

across the different groups of students

they teach.

12

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning

about Teaching: Preliminary Findings from the

Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Available at

http://metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findi

ngs-Research_Paper.pdf.

Memphis City Schools Department of Research,

Evaluation, Assessment, and Student Information

(REASI). (2010). Measures of Effective Teaching

(MET) Preliminary Results. From 30K: A Weekly

Briefing from REASI, 3 (14). Available at

http://www.mcsk12.net/aboutmcs_30K.asp.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

5

These findings support our work to develop a

multidimensional measure of teacher effective-

ness that includes student growth measures (e.g.,

value-added data), stakeholder perceptions,

observations of practice, and teacher content

knowledge. We anticipate similar outcomes

from the initial analyses of the four components

of the TEM.

Develop and implement each component of the

TEM

The appointment of Tequilla Banks as the

Executive Director of DTTE also precipitated

personnel changes in the office that is respon-

sible for the development of the new evaluation

system. Dr. Rorie Harris replaced Ms. Banks as

the Coordinator of the Office of Teacher

Effectiveness Measurement, and Dr. Tracy

Brittmon and Dr. Tracey Wilson were hired as

Research Analysts for the Office of Teacher

Effectiveness Measurement. This team is

commissioned to conduct analyses of the TEM

components (i.e., growth in student learning,

observation of practice, stakeholder perceptions,

and teacher content knowledge and pedagogy)

which might be used to assess teacher perform-

ance within a multidimensional model.

It is important to note that the development of

the TEM was accelerated when changes in the

Tennessee State legislature required every

teacher to be evaluated each year with the new

evaluation system, effective July 31, 2011. For

MCS, this means that each year approximately

7,000 teachers have to be evaluated. Per state

law, every educator in Tennessee will be

evaluated using the following framework: 50%

of the evaluation is measured by student

achievement (i.e., 35% TVAAS data and 15%

other measures of student achievement13

), and

13

The State-approved options for the 15% student

achievement include: discipline-specific assessment

observations of practice account for the re-

maining 50% of the evaluation (see Exhibit #1).

The TEM and the other State-approved models

for evaluation are based on five scoring levels of

effectiveness.

The Teacher Evaluation Working Group crafted

a recommendation for the TEM model. The

MCS Board of Education approved the recom-

mendations, thereby giving the District per-

mission to present the TEM model to the State

Board of Education on April 15, 2011. MCS‘

alternate model for evaluation comprises 50%

student achievement (35% TVAAS data and

15% other measures of student achievement),

40% observations of practice (measured by the

MCS Framework for Teaching and Learning),

5% teacher content knowledge (measure to be

determined), and 5% stakeholder perceptions

(Tripod survey). The TEM model is depicted in

Exhibit #2. Concerning the weighting assigned

to the TEM components, the percentage of

student achievement is in the statute; however,

the percentages for observations of practice,

stakeholder perceptions, and teacher content

knowledge are subject to change depending on

efforts to refine the model. MCS Deputy

Superintendent Irving Hamer14

contends, ―We

think these are formative, which means we can

continue to learn more, refine more, and develop

the measure more. The 5% [weight] for teacher

content knowledge and stakeholder perceptions

is an entry point for understanding how these

components should factor into the model.‖

(e.g., EOC, ELDA, MAAS, TCAP Writing), school-wide

TVAAS, student ACT/SAT scores, student graduation

rate, student post-secondary enrollment rate, and

completion/success rate in advanced coursework

(e.g., dual enrollment).

14 Irving Hamer is the MCS Deputy Superintendent of

Academic Operations, Technology, and Innovation

(AOTI).

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

6

On June 14, 2011, the Tennessee State Board of

Education approved three alternate evaluation

models, including the Teacher Effectiveness

Model (Memphis City Schools), Teacher

Instructional Growth for Effectiveness and

Results (TIGER — Association of Independent

and Municipal Schools), and Project COACH

(Hamilton Country Schools). The State has

committed that TNCRED (Nashville) will be the

external evaluator for all State-approved models

to facilitate the refinement of each evaluation

model.

This account of the progress for building the

TEM summarizes the decisions made with re-

spect to each component of the TEM as well as

the implications for preparing stakeholders for

district-wide implementation virtually one year

ahead of the schedule outlined in the original

proposal (August 2012). The complexity of

developing the TEM necessitates in-depth

conversations about the individual components

and the implications for execution in the years to

come. For this reason, separate accounts of the

planning and the progress around each com-

ponent are provided here.

Growth in Student Learning

The utility and benefit of value-added data in

assessing student growth and teacher perform-

ance are foremost in the rationale for inclusion

in the multidimensional measure of teacher

effectiveness. Not only is value-added data

useful for predictive and longitudinal profiles of

student achievement, but it is also an

accountability measure for teachers and

principals who have the most direct impact on

student achievement. For this reason, the use of

TVAAS data is foundational to our human

capital work.

The use of TVAAS data to develop the TEM has

been in a state of uncertainty, because we have

not had access to the teacher-level data file to

conduct analyses. (Recall that MCS‘ teacher

effectiveness work precipitated major changes to

the State Legislature such that TVAAS data

could be used for evaluation purposes. Despite

these legislative changes, we have had to rely on

Mathematica data via the EPIC15

program for

analyses in the absence of the TVAAS data.)

Efforts to secure access to TVAAS data have

been ongoing given the data‘s pivotal role in the

reform agenda. Deputy Superintendent Hamer

visited the executive management team of SAS

to discuss the possibility of a partnership with

the organization to further the work and port-

folio of MCS with regard to the use of value-

added data. The objective was to set the stage

for changing the nature of the relationship that

the District has with SAS as well as to establish

precedent for interactions that would be in the

best interest of MCS going forward. He reported

that the meeting was promising and signaled

some progress, yet the District made no official

arrangements to secure the value-added data.

Months passed after Deputy Superintendent

Hamer‘s meeting at SAS. The deadline for com-

pleting the TEM was quickly approaching with-

out our confirmed access to the TVAAS data

file. During that time, Tennessee Governor Bill

Haslam appointed a new Commissioner of Edu-

cation, Kevin Huffman, with whom Superin-

tendent Cash and Deputy Superintendent Hamer

arranged sessions to present the District‘s com-

prehensive reform agenda. The need for urgent

attention to the access and use of the TVAAS

data as the foundation of our reform was a focal

point of the discussion. Commissioner Huffman

15

Additional information about the Effective Practice

Incentive Community (EPIC) program is available at

www.nlns.org.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

7

expressed a clear interest in the reform work of

MCS and made a commitment to secure the

TVAAS data for school districts across the state.

For MCS, everything rides on this commitment

from the Tennessee Department of Education.

We cannot build or implement our TEM without

unfettered access to this database.

Observations of Practice

Classroom observations provide critical insight

into the quality of instructional practice. Accord-

ingly, the Tennessee Legislature stipulates that

observations of practice will count for 50% of

the teacher evaluation. Further, the law also

states that probationary teachers should be

observed a minimum of six times for a total

minimum of 90 minutes, and tenured teachers

should be observed a minimum of four times for

a total minimum of 60 minutes. Whereas obser-

vations of practice account for 50% of the

State‘s model for evaluation, observations of

practice account for 40% of our TEM model.

Within the framework of the TEM, it was

important to identify an observation rubric that

could serve as a basis for the common, agreed-

upon definition of effective teaching. The

consensus among District leaders, principals and

teachers was that the rubric should serve as a

guide to understanding what explicitly was

taking place in our classrooms.

Accordingly, the first order of business was to

identify an instrument that could capture the

presence (or absence) of classroom behaviors

that reflect effective teaching. The observation

rubric field test was designed to identify the

most appropriate observation model for a robust,

multidimensional evaluation system — one that

is able to detect specific teacher behaviors that

impact student achievement.

The Teacher Evaluation Working Group was

charged with the task of reviewing rubrics to be

included in the field test. This working group

spent months reviewing nationally-recognized

frameworks for observation and evaluation and

made the final recommendation to use three

rubrics for the field test: the MCS Revised

Framework for Evaluation16

, TAP observation

rubric, and the DC IMPACT (TEACH domain).

As plans unfolded for the field test and DC

IMPACT became an infamous tool for eval-

uation across the nation17

, we considered field

testing only the MCS Revised Framework for

Evaluation and TAP rubrics. However, the State

Department of Education, which was conducting

its own field test with the TAP rubric, asked

MCS to proceed with testing the DC IMPACT

observation instrument since that rubric was not

a part of the State field test and could inform

efforts for the State and our own research.

The objectives of the observation rubric field

test were as follows:

To examine which observation rubric

domains are the most sensitive detecting

effective teacher instructional behaviors

and resulting student actions;

To understand which technology would

be most suitable for agile data trans-

mission to supply the necessary

personnel with information to provide

timely and appropriate support;

To discover the most efficient process

by which comprehensive observations

16

The teacher evaluation working group revised the

original MCS Framework for Evaluation during its

summer 2010 retreat.

17 The DC IMPACT rubric made national headlines for

its role in terminating large numbers of teachers

from DC Public Schools.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

8

may occur when scaling up to district-

wide implementation in 2011–2012; and

To receive comprehensive feedback

from observers, teachers, principals, and

teacher support personnel regarding the

observation process.

School principals (N = 28), assistant principals

(N = 19), content specialists (N = 8), and

regional office staff (N = 4) volunteered to be

observers for the field test. Additionally, retired

principals (N = 6) were hired as contracted

observers for the field test. Dr. Brittmon

recruited participants through personal contact

via email messages, announcements in the

Monday Memo18

and at monthly principals‘

meetings, and correspondence to Memphis

Education Association (MEA) membership. The

pilot is designed such that school administrators,

con-tent specialists, and contracted observers are

conducting in-person observations. Contracted

observers and regional office staff are also rating

video observations using the three rubrics.

The observers attended multiple training ses-

sions on the rubric protocol, feedback delivery,

inter-rater reliability, and technology use. Reg-

ional office personnel, content specialists, and

contracted observers were trained on all of

rubrics; and school administrators were trained

on one of three observation rubrics for the field

test. The observers responded favorably to the

training sessions on the three rubrics. Members

of the Teacher Evaluation Working Group at-

tended some of the training sessions and agreed

that the training sessions brought to light the fact

that it is not easy to make judgments about an

educator‘s classroom practice. Likewise, they

thought it was important for other teachers to

18

The Monday Memo is a weekly correspondence

that is produced by School Operations to keep

principals informed of District operations.

have this level of experience with the rubrics.

This group made some recommendations for

ongoing exposure to and training for the

observation rubrics during the field test and

going forward once that rubric is chosen for the

TEM.

The primary purpose of the pilot was to test

three observation rubrics, but it also served as an

opportunity to test potential technology tools

that could facilitate future classroom observa-

tions. Observers were issued Apple iPads® to

maximize data capture during in-person ob-

servations. RANDA Solutions19

developed an

observation field test application that was loaded

onto the observers‘ iPads®. The field test

application made the teachers‘ names and

rubrics available for real-time data collection

and maintained records of progress for the

observer. Despite wireless internet challenges in

some schools, use of the iPad® for data col-

lection allowed the observers to complete the

rubrics anywhere and ―sync‖ the information to

another computer/laptop when available. Obser-

vation reports were generated once the infor-

mation synched to the server. The use of this

handheld technology was seemingly appropriate

for capturing and archiving observation data as

well as providing timely feedback. However,

some observers mentioned that they still wanted

the capability to script their observation notes

since the iPad® did not have scripting capa-

bilities. The iPad®

was chosen as the handheld

device to be used to facilitate classroom ob-

servations. Laptop and desktop computers can

also be used to access the online evaluation

system. RANDA Solutions was selected as the

vendor to create the electronic interface for the

TEM and had a June 30, 2011, deadline for

completion.

19

RANDA Solutions http://randasolutions.com/

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

9

The selection of teachers to be observed during

the field test was driven by the District‘s

existing evaluation schedule. Only teachers who

were not already scheduled to be evaluated this

year were eligible to participate in the obser-

vation field test. Human Resources generated a

list of the teachers who should be evaluated this

year, and this list was cross-referenced with the

list of MCS teachers who were scheduled for

evaluation to determine who would be randomly

selected for participation. Teachers (N = 508)

were randomly selected to participate in the field

test. It was important to make the teachers who

were randomly selected aware of the purpose

and goals of the field test as soon as possible.

The TEM office issued two memoranda — one

to the school principals and one to the teachers

selected to participate in the field test. Whereas

the memo to the principals was intended to

inform everyone in the building about the field

test generally, the memo to the teachers was

intended to inform teachers that they were

randomly selected to participate and outlined the

expectations of their involvement.

The observation field test began in January and

ended March 11, 2011, and the TEM Office

began analyzing the data and feedback from

participants. They convened a group of the

teachers who were observed using the three

rubrics. Participating teachers were also asked to

complete a feedback survey. The observers also

participated in a feedback session. A summary

of the feedback from both groups is provided

here.

Across all observer ratings, raters showed the

strongest agreement (i.e., inter-rater reliability)

when using the IMPACT rubric. The ratings for

principals and content specialists yielded the

strongest agreement with the IMPACT rubric.

Current and retired principals demonstrated the

most agreement when using the MCS Revised

rubric. This level of agreement is likely due to

their breadth of experience using the current tool

for evaluation. About 74% of the observers pre-

ferred the use of one of the field test rubrics over

the current MCS observation rubric. Teachers

also provided valuable feedback regarding the

rubrics used in the field test. Nearly 68% of

teachers reported that they preferred one of the

tested rubrics over the current rubric being used

to conduct classroom observations.

The Teacher Evaluation Working Group used

feedback from field test participants to arrive at

a recommendation for an observation rubric for

the TEM. The working group chose the IM-

PACT rubric to be a part of the TEM. Teachers

and principals noted that the IMPACT rubric

was straightforward and less cumbersome than

some of the other rubrics they have encountered

throughout this process. Likewise, the IMPACT

framework has differentiated rubrics for certain

teacher groups (e.g., art, physical education,

special education). Upon final approval of the

TEM model, the developers of the IMPACT

rubric will begin the development of an

IMPACT-based rubric for MCS so that it is

customized to the observational needs of the

District.

The next step for preparing for increased

numbers of observations and more frequent

feedback to teachers is to identify personnel in

the schools and across the district who are

eligible to conduct classroom observations.

According to Tennessee law, observers must be

certified through State-approved training. Past

practice in MCS has been also to require that

observers have an administrative license.

Because those who meet these criteria vary

across schools, the TEM office asked principals

to think about and communicate who could

assist with observations in their buildings.

Stakeholder Perceptions

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

10

“While value-added as a measure of learning is

something that we care a lot about, we also care

about the development of healthy dispositions

and the quality of life in the classroom."

Dr. Ron Ferguson20

As evidenced by preliminary MET findings,

student perceptions of teaching and learning

experiences are good indicators of teacher

effectiveness. The TRIPOD survey21

was ad-

ministered district-wide at the end of the last

school year to collect students‘ perceptions of

classroom experiences from students in grades

three through twelve. One of the most important

lessons learned from last year‘s administration

of the student perceptions survey is the need to

shore up the communication with teachers,

principals, and others about the TRIPOD survey

— mainly the format, purpose, and utility.

Teachers who participated in the MET project

were most familiar with the Tripod survey, but

they represented a smaller subgroup whose

understanding of the measure did not necessarily

migrate to the larger teaching corps. This dis-

connect is the source of increased levels of

anxiety about the inclusion of stakeholder

perceptions in new evaluation models.

There are still many questions about the validity

of having students ―judge‖ their teachers as well

as how much weight this type of feedback

should hold when making decisions about

teacher performance. Much of the confusion lies

20

Dr. Ron Ferguson (Harvard University) is the

developer of the TRIPOD survey.

21 The TRIPOD survey was administered and analyzed

in partnership with Cambridge Education and Dr.

Ron Ferguson. Additional information about the

Tripod assessments is available at

http://www.tripodproject.org/index.php/services/se

rvices_surveys/.

in the lack of knowledge around the types of

items built into the Tripod survey. For example,

many teachers believe that the survey asked

students questions to gauge how much they liked

their teachers. Further, teachers were concerned

that the responses to these types of questions

would have implications for whether or not they

might keep their jobs. Dr. Harris contends,

―Correcting the breakdown [in communication]

is a big priority this year. We have to do a better

job of dispelling the myths that surround the

Tripod survey.‖

One such attempt to dispel myths about the

Tripod survey occurred during a TEI Institute22

in May 2011. Dr. Brittmon held breakout

sessions about the Tripod survey to present

information about the student perceptions

instrument and answer any clarifying questions

from teachers. Dr. Brittmon asked the teachers if

they thought students could provide accurate and

thoughtful perceptions of what was happening in

the classroom. Interestingly, the overwhelming

majority of teachers agreed that students could

identify what was happening (or not) in their

classrooms with respect to teaching and

learning. Yet, their understanding of the value in

having this type of stakeholder feedback was

initially outweighed by the concerns for having

students evaluate them.

Upon entering the session, teachers received a

K-W-L worksheet so that they could organize

what they know, what they wanted to know, and

what they learned about the Tripod during the

session. Teachers revealed many misconceptions

when asked to state what they already knew

about the Tripod survey. Generally, they were

aware that the Tripod survey had been used in

22

TEI Institutes are half-day sessions held to train

teachers, assistant principals and others on different

aspects of the reform work.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

11

the MET project and allowed children to assess

their teacher. They also knew that it was admin-

istered last year. Teachers expressed great con-

cern that they could be fired from their jobs

based on the student ratings provided. Likewise,

they believed that students, having knowledge of

the high-stakes nature of their input, would

intentionally provide low ratings for teachers,

particularly if they were at odds with the teacher

during the survey administration.

Dr. Brittmon presented the constructs23

that

make up the Tripod survey to demonstrate that

the survey does not assess students‘ opinions.

Rather, it measures students‘ ratings of teachers‘

behavior in the classroom. She reiterated that the

questions on the survey do not ask students

whether they ―like‖ or ―dislike‖ a teacher. The

Tripod dimensions and sample questions are

depicted in Exhibit #3. Teachers were also

concerned that the length of the surveys would

influence students‘ responses. They asserted that

students ―would only get to number 20 or so

before they started just marking anything.‖

Admittedly, the length (i.e., nearly 80 items) of

the Tripod survey is a challenge, and the TEM

office is exploring potential modifications to the

length and administration of the survey. At the

close of these sessions, teachers acknowledged

their clear anxiety about the perceived

subjectivity of the measure but confirmed that

they learned a lot about and have a better under-

standing of the Tripod survey. Teachers‘ feed-

back is reflective of the ongoing measurement

and process refinement needed to mitigate their

concerns and improve the use of the measure

going forward.

23

The Tripod survey is built on the Seven C’s

which refer to the teacher competencies or

behaviors. The Seven C’s are: Caring, Controlling,

Clarifying, Challenging, Captivating, Conferring,

and Consolidating.

The TEM Office is also working on ways to

incorporate parent and peer perceptions into the

model. (Recall that the original proposal stated

that student, peer, and parent perceptions would

account for 15% of the evaluation.) The District

has struggled with having adequate measures

and response rates on surveys from these groups

of stakeholders in the past. The TEM office

recognizes the 5% weight recommended by the

Teacher Evaluation Working Group as an

opportunity to explore appropriate measures and

methodology for gathering peer and parent

perceptions for inclusion in the teacher eval-

uation model. For this reason, student per-

ceptions will be the only type of stakeholder

perceptions for the initial roll-out of the TEM.

Although the Tripod was originally scheduled

for this spring, the administration has been

rescheduled for early fall 2011 to align better

with the data collection for other components of

the TEM. This delay also provides a window of

opportunity to explore different versions of and

methods for the Tripod, namely those that allow

younger groups of students (e.g., kindergarten to

second graders) whom the original Tripod

survey does not accommodate.

Teacher Content Knowledge

Teacher content knowledge is the least

confirmed TEM component at this time, because

there are dimensions to measuring this

component that do not lend themselves to

practicality, feasibility, or consensus in

implementation. The majority of stakeholders

agree that the use of certification exams (e.g.,

Praxis, NTE) is static and not necessarily

representative of the teachers‘ ability to

demonstrate knowledge in their content areas

and move children toward student achievement.

The only data we have available for early testing

of the TEM components were Praxis and NTE

data; however, scores from these tests were

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

12

included only during preliminary testing to

assess potential relationships between teacher

knowledge and student outcomes. Preliminary

analyses from the TEM office indicated that

Praxis scores are not correlated to student

achievement.

MET project researchers are piloting a content

knowledge assessment in conjunction with ETS.

To date, 82 MCS MET fourth and fifth grade

English/Language Arts and Mathematics

teachers have taken the content knowledge test.

Ideally, data collected from these teachers‘

content knowledge tests would inform our

efforts to include this dimension in the measure-

ment model; however, the survey administration

through the MET project is intended for group-

level analyses to inform professional develop-

ment. Thus, these findings are not generated in

the teacher-level format that is needed to

incorporate in our multidimensional model.

With these challenges and the deadlines for

TEM implementation imminent, the question

remains whether we can test content and peda-

gogical knowledge as evolving dimensions

practice. When initial strategies for measuring

teacher content knowledge did not emerge as

expected, the TEM office looked to the teachers

for input.

In April 2011, the TEM office held a series of

focus groups with teachers to collect feedback

on the utility and measure of content knowledge

for teacher evaluation. Forty teachers attended a

series of focus groups to provide feedback on

measures of content knowledge for the TEM.

They represented core content courses as well as

non-tested subjects across all grade levels (i.e.,

elementary, middle, and high school).

Dr. Tracey Wilson, Research Analyst for the

TEM office, invited teachers to participate in

conversations about the teacher content know-

ledge component. Teachers received questions

ahead of time to prepare for the focus group

discussions. She opened the sessions with a

review of how all four components (i.e., student

growth data, observation of practice, teacher

content knowledge, and stakeholder perceptions)

are incorporated into the TEM. Dr. Wilson also

presented the results of a survey on potential

measures of content knowledge. The survey

results indicated teachers‘ preferences for using

Praxis (15.9%), standardized tests (11.3%),

content-specific observations (37.8%), portfolios

(28.4%), or a combination of these options

(6.5%) as measures of content knowledge and

pedagogy.

The impact of teacher content knowledge and

pedagogy on student achievement, teacher con-

tent knowledge assessments, and other measures

of content knowledge were the topics of

discussion for the focus groups. Teachers agreed

that teacher content knowledge and pedagogy

were very important for student achievement.

The consensus was that, ―you cannot teach what

you don‘t know,‖ and ―you can use better

strategies if you know and feel comfortable with

the content.‖ Teachers also agreed that content

knowledge and pedagogy should be measured

separately, because they require a different set of

skills.

Teachers identified several problems with using

Praxis (or NTE) scores to measure content

knowledge. One of the most frequently men-

tioned problems was the fact that Praxis is a

snapshot of teachers‘ content knowledge.

Teachers in every session argued that many

people do not test well, and a test would be an

inaccurate reflection of what they know. For

example, there are teachers who might test well

but might not implement good strategies in the

classroom. Teachers recommended different

formats for testing if it had to be an option. For

example, open-ended questions may help assess

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

13

pedagogical strategies, and perhaps task-oriented

or multiple-choice questions could assess

knowledge and skills. Completion of additional

college courses in specific subject areas was also

suggested as a measure of content knowledge,

with the caveat that this type of assessment may

be more appropriate for secondary school

teachers. Portfolios were a popular choice;

however, teachers said that portfolios could still

be subjective and should perhaps be assessed

using a rubric.

Teachers across all of the focus group sessions

preferred a combination of measures (e.g., port-

folio, assessment, content-specific observation)

for content knowledge and pedagogy. They

supported the differentiation of measures in the

way that instruction and testing are differen-

tiated for students. To this end, the TEM office

convened teacher working teams during the

summer to identify and/or design measures for

content knowledge and pedagogy. Because the

menu of options for measuring content knowl-

edge might likely be limited, the TEM office and

teachers will also examine existing practices

(e.g., National Board Certification) for demon-

strating content knowledge.

Conduct intensive training of MCS teachers

and principals to improve awareness of value-

added metrics

Beyond a series of archived WebEx training

videos on student growth data that are available

through the MCS Mediasite24

, the District does

not have the capacity to deliver the level of

training needed to improve awareness and

understanding of value-added metrics. There are

several factors that limit the District‘s capacity

to expand a common sensibility of value-added

24

Mediasite (mediasite.mcsk12.net) is the MCS

repository for online professional development

videos and materials.

data, not the least of which is the ambiguity of

the definition and utility of value-added metrics

for various stakeholders (i.e., teachers, prin-

cipals, and administrators). The potential uses of

value-added data are far-reaching and vary

depending on the need and interest of the

stakeholder. For example, teachers can use their

own as well as their students‘ value-added

scores to reflect on their practice and use

students‘ value-added scores to drive instruction

in the classroom. School administrators can use

the value-added scores of teachers and students

to engage in strategic planning and team

building for their schools. We acknowledge the

need to train District personnel — particularly

teachers — and students on the differences

between AYP (adequate yearly progress), as

defined by the No Child Left Behind

benchmarks, and value-added data. For example,

many teachers in non-tested subjects are anxious

about the use of their school‘s value-added score

for their 35% measure of student growth,

arguing that their evaluation score would suffer

because their school did not make AYP. It has

been a challenge to address teachers‘ beliefs that

achievement, rather than growth, is only one

component included in the four-dimensional

TEM model. The misconception and

misunderstanding of value-added data versus

AYP is a function of the historical practice and

propensity for AYP designations in discerning

performance.

The District is partnering with a national edu-

cational reform organization to build the

knowledge base for value-added data across the

school district. Battelle for Kids is a not-for-

profit organization that has contracted with the

State of Tennessee to provide to districts across

the state a variety of services related to teacher

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

14

effectiveness. According to their website25

,

Battelle for Kids maintains a strategic program

of work with regard to human capital reform:

―We partner with state departments of education,

school districts and education-focused organ-

izations to advance these strategies with the

shared goals of: improving teacher effectiveness

and student progress; informing instructional

practice in real time; recognizing and rewarding

teaching excellence; and aligning goals and

maximizing impact in schools.‖ In Memphis, the

organization made training around value-added

data available for teachers, principals, and

district administrators.

Battelle for Kids is working with the Office of

Professional Development and Staff In-Service

as well as the Office of Research, Evaluation,

Assessment, and Student Information (REASI)

to deliver training on value-added metrics. We

are building district-wide capacity through a

system of online courses for teachers such that

12 (of 26) hours of online training designated as

mandatory professional development for

teachers to deepen the understanding and utility

of value-added data for guiding instruction and

decision-making. Most of the teachers who have

completed this training have reported that the

training was very useful in helping them under-

stand value-added data better. Even teachers

without value-added data have seen the training

and reported that it was helpful to them as well.

The training has helped to make clear the

distinction between proficiency and student

growth as evidenced by the growing number of

teachers who recognize that an adequate yearly

progress (AYP) is not synonymous with their

capacity to provide children with one year‘s

growth in achievement for one year‘s

instruction.

25

More information is available on the Battelle for

Kids website www.battelleforkids.org.

Training manuals were prepared for and dis-

seminated to principals, regional superintend-

dents, and other District personnel to orient them

to the purpose and utility of value-added metrics

for improving student achievement. In

December 2010, all principals attended two half-

day training sessions on formative instructional

strategies and value-added data with Battelle for

Kids; the follow up training was held in January

2011. To date, 58% of certified educators (e.g.,

principals, assistant principals, instructional

facilitators, and teachers) have completed the

Battelle for Kids training across the district. All

educators completed the training by August 1,

2011.

The utility and application of value-added data

are in the ―eye of the beholder‖. Whereas the

Professional Development and Staff In-service

office is coordinating the training for value-

added data in for guiding instruction, Dr. Harris

in the TEM office is leading the charge to

increase awareness of value-added data for

teachers and principals as it relates specifically

to teacher evaluation and aspects of career

management. Because growth in student

achievement is a major component of the TEM

(and the State‘s evaluation for that matter), it is

imperative that teachers and principals have a

clear understanding of what it means to factor

student achievement growth into an appraisal of

teachers‘ performance.

Conclusion

The work around identifying a common, agreed-

upon definition of effective teaching continues

to evolve as we learn more about what effective

teaching looks like and explore the implications

for teachers, classrooms, and school buildings.

The MET project represents burgeoning research

in public education reform, and our continued

participation in the project guides the ongoing

development of a multidimensional measure of

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

15

teacher effectiveness. We look forward to

learning more from the MET project and from

its expanded and continued implementation with

the MET sub-study. The Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation funded an extension of the MET

project that will emphasize the role of

professional development in increasing teacher

effectiveness. The hallmark of the MET sub-

study is the use of video coaching as a

professional development tool. The MET team

has already begun to introduce the MET sub-

study (i.e., the MET extension). The MET sub-

study is described in more detail in Strategy No.

3: Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate

Teachers, because it is a major component of

our work supporting teachers through reflective

practice.

The nature of teacher evaluation has changed for

good, particularly across the state of Tennessee.

MCS represents one of the school districts

seeking to pioneer innovative evaluation models

to increase teacher effectiveness. State law

mandates 50% of teacher evaluation is student

growth and achievement, but for its share, MCS

has exercised autonomy to create a

multidimensional model. We have also made

certain that the development of the TEM has

been a teacher-driven process. Teachers made

decisions on which rubric to include in the

model as well as how much each component

should be rated in the first version of the TEM.

By statute, school districts must revisit and

refine their evaluation models on an annual

basis. Therefore, it is in our best interest to keep

teachers involved in the evolution of this work.

Likewise, it is important to stay abreast and

maintain focus on incorporating the most appro-

priate research and data for the components of

the measure.

Colleen Oliver26

reminded us that it is important

to continue forging on in our original intent to

build the TEM. She was emphatic in her support

for the development of the measure in saying,

―The TEM is everything. It is about teacher

control [over their evaluation]. The power of this

[tool] is that it is grounded in research. I think it

is a game changer. I think this sets Memphis

apart from everybody else.‖

MCS submitted the application for approval for

the TEM to the State Board of Education on

May 2, 2011, and the implementation plan for

the model on May 16, 2011. Any school district

in the state can adopt the TEM model once

designated a State-approved model for

evaluation.

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps

There are still some issues with the TEM that

require urgent attention pursuant to the deadlines

for final State approval and roll-out of the new

evaluation system for the coming school year.

Among the most pressing issues is identifying

student achievement (15%) and teacher content

knowledge (5%) measures and conducting

district-wide training for teachers and principals

for the TEM.

Though access to teacher-level TVAAS data is

imminent, the delay thus far has placed us in a

vulnerable position for next year. To explain,

there remain some inconsistencies with a

proposed TEM profile because of not having

early access to the TVAAS data to use to

explore different evaluation scenarios and

prepare for roll-out in the fall semester.

Only about 35% of MCS teachers are in State-

tested subjects. Therefore, there is a larger body

26

Colleen Oliver was the MCS Program Officer for

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation until May 2011.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

16

of teachers for whom there is no measure of

student growth in achievement (i.e., TVAAS).

For these teachers, Tennessee law mandates that

their school‘s value-added data (35%) and the

State-approved options for achievement (15%)

account for the student achievement portion of

their evaluation. Similarly, new teachers who do

not have TVAAS data will also have to use the

school-level value-added data for their eval-

uations. Teachers are vehemently opposed to the

use of their school‘s value-added data as a

measure of student growth and argue that there

are better ways to determine their capacity to

advance students each year. The TEM office is

working to understand better what the Tennessee

law means for unique teacher groups and

circumstances (e.g., interim teachers, support

teachers, and schools without TVAAS scores)

where student growth data are not available.

The timing of the evaluation has many teachers

and principals anxious. More specifically, the

anxiety is a result of the ambiguity around when

certain data will be made available for the

evaluation. Many are also concerned about the

timing of the TVAAS data for the use of the

TEM. We understand there will likely be a one-

year lag time for TVAAS data. The timing of the

release of data to the District is what engenders

some apprehension for the TEM office (which is

responsible for conducting analyses and

producing evaluation profiles for every teacher,

every year) as well as for the teachers and

principals who wait in anticipation for the results

of the evaluation.

Decisions about how to measure teacher content

knowledge warrant urgent attention. As it

stands, we do not have a clear sense about what

measure (or proxy) is most appropriate for

understanding teacher content knowledge. The

main challenge is solidifying an approach and

having something that is a reliable measure of

teacher content knowledge in place by the time

the TEM rolls out in August 2011. The State and

other district stakeholders are not strong pro-

ponents of building separate measures for this

component. The planned summer sessions with

teachers helped to identify measures and

methods that are appropriate.

Addressing concerns around the Tripod survey

— particularly the student sample and the timing

of administration of the survey — are also a

priority as TEM development continues. There

is still no way of collecting the perceptions of

students in the early grades (i.e., kindergarten

through second grade). How can students in

these grades provide feedback about their ex-

periences in classrooms in a way that is valid

and reliable? The validity of measuring student

perceptions across multiple classes should also

be considered. In other words, are the ratings of

classroom experiences stable for teachers across

multiple class periods? To administer the Tri-

pod during one class period in elementary grades

typically means that the survey is given to

students who are with the same teacher for a

significant portion of the day. Validity is more

likely to be an issue in secondary grades because

teachers have different classes of students

throughout the day. There are also some ques-

tions about the amount of time needed to

analyze the survey scores when administered at

the end of the school year. What is the turn-

around time for data to be used in reports of

teacher performance? Cambridge Education, the

vendor for the Tripod survey, is working to help

streamline the administration of the survey and

think through ways to ensure timely analyses

and use of the survey data.

With the exception of teacher content knowledge,

the TEM model is in place; however, there are

gaps in the outline of the process that support the

tool. There has been limited discussion about

what happens once a TEM profile is generated

for teachers. Principals, in particular, have con-

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

17

tinued to ask, ―Then what?‖ They are referring to

our need to articulate better the larger framework

and implications for teacher evaluations. We have

to determine who, other than the principals and

assistant principals, can conduct classroom

observations. It is also not clear what happens to

a teacher who receives a ―below‖ or

―significantly below‖ expectations rating. Also,

in addition to building-level logistics for

evaluating teachers, there are several questions

about the role of compliance (e.g., Human

Resources and Labor Relations) in the new

evaluation framework. These and other questions

will guide training efforts to provide targeted

responses and guide-lines for the processes that

surround the TEM implementation.

One other heavy lift for us is preparing to train all

principals, teachers, and select District personnel

on the evaluation system — the observation

rubric in particular. Insight Education Group, the

framework developers, completed the rubric on

schedule and began training different stake-

holder groups (i.e., roughly 700 people) shortly

thereafter. We also took advantage of two

district-wide summer training opportunities —

The Forum for Innovative Leadership and the

Practitioners‘ Summit — to begin to train

principals and teachers, respectively. Training for

all stakeholder groups will be ongoing as the

measure continues to be refined and new

developments unfold at the State level.

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

18

Exhibit #1: Tennessee Teacher Evaluation Model: 2011-2012 School Year

Tennessee Teacher Evaluation:2011-2012 School Year

35% - Student growth data (TVAAS)

15% - Additional student achievement data

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

19

Exhibit #2: Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM)

Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM)

When evaluating teacher effectiveness, there

are multiple lines of evidence to consider:

• Student growth

• Student achievement

• Observations of practice

• Stakeholder perceptions

• Teacher knowledge

Define and Measure Effective Teaching

20

Exhibit #3: Tripod Survey Dimensions and Sample Questions

Measuring Student Perceptions: The Tripod Survey

The 7 Cs Sample Items

Caring about students “My teacher in this class makes me feel s/hereally cares about me”

Controlling behavior “Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time”

Clarifying lessons “My teacher explains difficult things clearly”

Challenging lessons “My teacher wants me to explain my answers – why I think what I think”

Captivating students “My teacher makes learning enjoyable”

Conferring with students “My teacher wants us to share our thoughts”

Consolidating knowledge “My teacher takes time to summarize what we learn each day”

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

21

Strategy No. 2: Make Better Decisions about

Who Teaches

Building a strong and effective teaching corps

requires the delicate interplay of talent identi-

fication, performance management, and data-

driven decision-making. The underlying as-

sumption is that there are solid processes and

policies in place to support these components

that facilitate recruitment, staffing, and reten-

tion. Intuitively, the policies and procedures

should be in place prior to enacting changes to

the way teachers enter and matriculate through

their careers in the District, yet Memphis City

Schools (MCS) is working to do both in parallel

— to build a strong teaching corps and to es-

tablish appropriate processes and protocols to

facilitate reform within the framework of human

capital management.

The milestones for this strategy are as follows:

Improve the recruitment and hiring of

high-potential teachers;

Better coordinate and leverage outside

partnerships that recruit and place can-

didates in MCS;

Raise the bar and improve the processes

for granting tenure;

Increase retention of effective teachers,

particularly early in their careers; and

Increase the turnover of the District‘s

most ineffective teachers.

Context

Last year (2009–2010) marked the beginning of

a new era for MCS‘ recruitment, hiring, and

staffing. The outsourcing of all recruitment and

staffing services to The New Teacher Project

(TNTP; also known as STARS27

) was a bold

approach to building a strong teaching corps in

MCS. A key victory from this change in recruit-

ment and staffing was the progress of the early

staffing initiative for the Striving Schools Zone

(SSZ)28

. ‗The Zone‘ was completely staffed by

the end of May 2010. Likewise, there were

1,705 total vacancies identified district-wide,

and 1,550 (90%) positions were filled by the

start of school in August 2010. This approach,

though it yielded some success, was met with

significant challenges. Changes to the recruit-

ment and staffing strategies produced mixed

results for the District. Despite some progress,

nearly 100 vacancies were not filled on the first

day of school. It is important to note the factors

that facilitated the early staffing initiative.

The success of the early staffing initiative with

the SSZ was a function of partnerships with

Memphis Education Association (MEA) and

27

As of January 2010, the Strategic Teacher Staffing

and Recruitment (STARS) Office is responsible for all

recruitment and placement of teacher candidates in

Memphis City Schools.

28 Striving Schools is the designation given to high-

priority schools (N = 28) in the district. Eight of the

schools in the SSZ are in jeopardy of State takeover

and categorized as the Achievement School District

(ASD).

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

22

partner programs. MEA granted staffing conces-

sions for interim teachers and simultaneous job

postings for internal and external candidates.

Without the help of MEA in these areas, pro-

cesses would have been further delayed. For

example, the dismissal of interim teachers

(whom many principals wanted to retain) could

result in the loss of these teachers because of

drawn-out processes of reapplying, interviewing,

and onboarding. In years past, the District has

lost many interim teachers to neighboring school

districts because of the temporary contract or

less seniority. Similarly, internal candidates have

priority staffing privileges through the internal

transfer process so that they are privy to va-

cancies before any external candidates can be

notified for interview and referral for placement.

The volume of applicants in 2010 (N = 1,800)

who submitted applications to become teachers

in MCS was due largely in part to the wide-

spread recruitment strategies that targeted

external teaching candidates. Likewise,

coordinated efforts to work with partner

programs to staff candidates in hard-to-staff

schools and subject areas also influenced the

influx of applicants. For example, Teach for

America (TFA) supplied 100 teachers; Memphis

Teaching Fellows (MTF) supplied 64 teachers,

and Memphis Teacher Residency (MTR)

supplied 26 teachers to support the District‘s

staffing goals. Generally, principals were

pleased with the already apparent changes to and

outcomes of the new recruitment and staffing

process, believing they had access to better

quality candidates and better opportunities to

find the best matches for their schools. These

sentiments are not surprising, given STARS‘

commitment to external recruitment and mutual

consent placement. Principals in the SSZ

appreciated the urgency toward high-priority

schools, because they have typically had to settle

for candidates who may not be prepared or well-

suited for teaching in an urban environ-ment.

Principals provided feedback on issues needing

improvement going forward.

Although principals had favorable comments

about access to quality candidates, they were

less complimentary in their feedback about the

information and communication gaps between

STARS and Human Resources. They were

frustrated with having to go back and forth

between STARS and Human Resources to get

staffing updates and to have their questions

answered. Further, disparate levels of inform-

ation and access to data systems between the

two offices left principals with no single source

for staffing inquiries. This disconnect had direct

implications for another limitation identified by

principals — a lack of responsiveness. The

STARS team acknowledges that they were

understaffed and could not adequately manage

the volume of calls and emails coming into their

offices from teaching candidates, principals, and

other stakeholders. Ultimately, the Human

Resources and STARS teams fell short of

delivering good customer service to District

stakeholders because of the quality of com-

munication and collaboration between depart-

ments. Because STARS‘ operations were a

function of an information deficit, there were

few opportunities for them to expedite many of

the steps that were built into an already

inefficient process.

Many of the staffing challenges were brought

about by a hiring timeline delayed by late

identification of vacancies and cumbersome

processes. (Late identification of vacancies is

continuing to be a major problem insomuch that

78% of total vacancies were identified between

May and September, and 60% [N = 717] of

vacancies were identified across the district after

July 1, 2010.) Moreover, 114 of these vacancies

opened in August 2010. Those vacancies were

typically classified as late teacher transfers,

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

23

terminations (due to licensure), retirements, and

resignations.

There was very little traction as a result of

targeted efforts to retain good teachers or to lay

the groundwork for the dismissal of chronically

low-performing teachers. A lack of clear work-

stream ownership, the commitment to traditional

practice, and a marginal use of fragmented data

sources contributed to the limited progress for

this strategy. Difficulties staffing of the Office

of Teacher Talent and Effectiveness (OTTE) 29

meant that there were no clear owners for the

work of increasing the retention of effective

teachers, of increasing the turnover of in-

effective teachers, and of improving the tenure

process. The tenure working group made a

number of recommendations to the cross-

functional leadership team; however, no major

changes resulted.

It is clear that we needed to refocus our attention

on increasing the turnover of our chronically

low-performing teachers. Frankly, MCS did

nothing to identify low-performing teachers and

provide support to improve practice during Year

1, mainly because there was no objective means

(i.e., a measure of teacher effectiveness) for

determining what constitutes effective or inef-

fective teaching.

Implementation and Findings

Major work has been done in the areas of

streamlining operations and developing collab-

orative relationships among stakeholders (e.g.,

principals, staffing teams, partners, and District

personnel) to improve recruitment and staffing

29

The Office of Teacher Talent and Effectiveness

(OTTE) is now the Department of Teacher Talent and

Effectiveness (DTTE). The change occurred after

Superintendent Cash’s departmental reorganization

in September 2010.

processes. Much of what is described here with

regard to recruitment and staffing has been the

work of the Staffing Task Force. The work

focuses on streamlining processes to maximize

efficiency through an enhanced synergy between

Human Resources and STARS. These two

administrative entities are at a point where dis-

jointed operations and communication pose

threats to outcomes for schools, and most

importantly, students.

The launch of strategies to raise the bar for

tenure is the product of the work of the Tenure

Working Group and task force. Tenure has be-

come a controversial topic of discussion because

of a new State law that extends teachers‘

probationary period to five years (versus three

years). Moreover, teachers seeking tenure must

receive ―above/significantly above expectations‖

evaluation scores for the last two years of their

probationary period. These changes, by virtue of

increased standards for attaining tenure, have

made the process more rigorous. Steps taken to

raise the bar for granting tenure are inextricably

linked to improving the evaluation process30

,

increasing the retention of effective teachers,

and increasing the turnover of ineffective

teachers. Accordingly, the overlap in the stra-

tegies and efforts are easily detected.

Improve recruitment and hiring of “high-

potential” teachers through partnership with

TNTP

Many of the strategies for making smarter

decisions about who teaches include language

about ―high potential‖ teachers. In short, ―high

potential‖ refers to the teacher candidates who

have come to the district through the partner

programs (i.e., MTR, TFA, and MTF). External

30

Improving the evaluation process is a key initiative

for the TEI Strategy No. 3: Better Support, Utilize,

and Compensate Teachers.

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

24

candidates who have been vetted by these

programs are considered ―high potential‖ based

on the qualifications, selection, and training

experiences that these candidates have prior to

entry into the MCS teaching pool. This sup-

position is especially debatable, because it does

not translate into the same claim for internal

candidates for whom we are unable to pinpoint

similar experiences. We will finalize the

definition of ―high potential‖ for internal can-

didates after the TEM has been rolled out

district-wide.

The primary Year 2 target for recruiting and

staffing is to have 95% of vacancies filled by

May 30, 2011, and to have the schools 100%

staffed by the opening of schools on August 1,

2011. The Year 2 targets can be met only to the

extent that there is an earlier staffing timeline

and processes and transactions are consolidated.

Given the targets set for the upcoming staffing

season, early steps were taken to improve the

collaboration between STARS and HR and to

align work streams, tasks, and responsibilities

among all departments involved in the recruit-

ment and staffing processes. In September 2010,

the staffing task force participated in a three-day

staffing ―deep dive‖ with Betsy Arons, an expert

human resources consultant with the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation. The purpose of the

sessions was to identify areas for process

improvements related to recruiting and hiring

teacher candidates and to adjust milestones and

staffing strategies for the 2011 staffing season.

Ms. Arons opened the first session with a clear

objective and disclaimer for the work that was

before the team: ―I‘m going to push you pretty

hard because the process is not a healthy one,

and you all know it. There is a lot here than can

be streamlined. You have a common ground;

you want the best people, and you want them

early. You are working hard, but you have a

crazy process, and it is causing a lot of angst that

doesn‘t have to be there. It‘s bigger than work-

ing together in a bad process.‖

The ―crazy process‖ that Ms. Arons is referring

to is the nearly 20-step process that begins with

recruitment of potential candidates and ends

with the on-boarding of new teachers. Several

recommendations for establishing an earlier

staffing timeline emerged from the staffing

―deep dives.‖ The task force identified a more

streamlined, collaborative working relationship

between STARS and Human Resources: shared

access to data, shared and equitable knowledge

bases, and shared technological support for key

processes for reaching the current year‘s targets.

Initially, it looked as if there were no changes to

the staffing timeline because the proposed

strategies reflected a staffing schedule that

would begin in March 2011, as in years past. A

memo to regional superintendents, budget center

managers, budget services, STARS, and Human

Resources detailing a timeline (November 30,

2010–February 2, 2011) initiated the early

staffing of budgeted positions. The memo

outlined key events to guide and monitor

progress toward early staffing. The timeline and

related outcomes with implications for staffing

protocols are described here. This summary of

changes to the staffing timeline is not meant to

be exhaustive, rather it is meant to highlight

areas of the process that are new or have been

consolidated to facilitate improvements in re-

cruitment and staffing.

In January 2011, principals received information

to help them devise a staffing plan which was to

include the following: enrollment projections,

2011–2012 master schedules, personnel inform-

ation tied to the school, specialty positions (art,

music, and special education), directives for

budget cuts or additional position allocations,

and a guidance document. Principals received

the School-Based Budget and Staffing Guidance

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

25

Handbook to help them identify their staffing

needs at an earlier date. The document included

a review of current staff and staffing allocations,

including information related to the number of

teachers to be surplussed (based on the staffing

formula) as well as the number of grant-funded

teachers whose funds end this year. This

document also contained guidelines for sur-

plussing teachers based on policy-driven criteria

and procedures. For example, principals were

encouraged to avoid the practice of using the

surplus process to remove teachers who are not

meeting performance expectations, because it

is more appropriate to address performance

through the teacher evaluation process.

To address the challenge of late notification of

vacancies, STARS launched the Declaration of

Intent survey again this year to identify potential

vacancies prior to the end of the school year.

This year, nearly 70% of teachers responded to

the survey to indicate whether they will retire

from, transfer from, or stay in their current

positions with the District. This year, 161

teachers have notified Human Resources about

their decision to retire. Seventy teachers have

been identified for termination for failure to

meet licensure renewal requirements, and there

are 40 vacancies due to resignations. In each

case, the rate of notification does not align with

the number of vacancies that have been

identified as a function of retirement,

termination, or resignation. The STARS team is

working with principals to ensure that they

identify and submit vacancies as soon as

possible. Teachers had until June 30, 2011 to

give notice of retirement or resignation.

An electronic vacancy form was launched

March 2011 for principals to use when reporting

an opening at their schools. Members of the

STARS team worked to create an electronic

solution to address the need for faster turnaround

times for vacancy identification and approval. In

the past, the principals completed a vacancy

form and (manually) mailed it to Human

Resources or STARS. The form was then sent to

Budget/Finance so that the vacancy could be

verified as a budgeted position. This vacancy

form changed hands and moved from office to

office several times, which typically resulted in

misplaced paperwork and delayed turnaround

times for principals looking to staff their

buildings.

The online vacancy form is basically an elec-

tronic replica of the paper-based form and can

be accessed through the principal portal on

www.teachmemphis.org. Once principals com-

plete and submit the form through the website,

the form is electronically routed to the

Budget/Finance or Federal Programs depart-

ment, depending on the funding source for the

position. After personnel from these offices

approve or reject the vacancy, a notification is

sent to both the school principal and STARS

confirming the vacancy and signaling STARS to

begin referring candidates to principals for

interviewing. Whereas turnaround times for the

paper-based vacancy approval could take nearly

three or four weeks, the expectation is that

personnel at every step will honor a 24-hour

turnaround time for action and follow up. The

STARS team continues to develop mechanisms

to monitor and set control limits at critical

junctures to ensure that theses expectations are

met throughout the process. This process is

completely automated, including instances

where principals need to submit additional

documents (e.g., official notifications of retire-

ment and resignation) from teachers in their

buildings. There are still some areas that need

adjustments as this is not intended to be the final

solution for the technology and staffing needs of

the District.

Similar to the electronic vacancy form, the

online transfer application was revamped to

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

26

maximize efficiency and utility. The first

transfer period began in early February 2011.

Internal candidates accessed the voluntary

transfer application through the teacher portal at

www.teachmemphis.org. There were several

challenges with the online application last year,

including difficulties navigating the online

process and submission of additional docu-

mentation beyond the online application. The

STARS team has worked to improve the online

interface for voluntary transfers based on

teachers‘ feedback. For example, the online

transfer application was revised to be more user

friendly, to include concise explanations of key

terms, and to provide more frequent updates on

the application status. Likewise, all of the

information needed to process the voluntary

transfer application is collected through this

portal; teachers are not required to do anything

other than complete the online application.

There is still the matter of negotiations with the

union on issues directly affecting recruitment

and staffing. Voluntary transfer, seniority, and

delineation of ―hard-to-staff‖ schools were

among the issues on the table for negotiation.

MEA granted flexibility for staffing the SSZ.

Similar flexibility was granted last year; how-

ever, feeder pattern and hard-to-staff schools

were included in the population of schools (and

subject areas) that would receive special

considerations for staffing, such as simultaneous

posting and interviewing for internal and

external candidates and requiring principals to

interview the top four (versus five) senior

applicants during the transfer periods. The

results of this collaboration signal the union‘s

commitment to the District, and Deputy Super-

intendent Hamer is adamant in saying, ―MEA

understands that if [they] don‘t do this, we can‘t

get the [teacher effectiveness] work done.‖

Hamer wrote similar comments in a recent

article31

in the Tennessean stating: ―Nothing has

happened in our schools without the awareness,

participation, and support of the labor organ-

ization. For example, the Bill-&-Melinda-Gates-

Foundation-funded teacher effectiveness work

underway here continues to be the object of deep

partnership with the MEA.‖

Apropos to these sentiments, the fruits of the

early staffing planning and ongoing collabor-

ation with MEA are quite impressive. During the

first transfer period in February 2011, 70% of

vacancies (N = 84) were filled. A comparison

between April 2010 and April 2011 of the

recruitment and staffing yields reflect the

progress that has been made year-to-date. The

number of candidates submitting applications to

teach was 3,100 compared to 1,800 who sub-

mitted applications to teach in MCS last year.

There was a 90% increase in the number of

candidates ready for hire (N = 1,100) compared

to the 21 candidates who were approved for the

new teacher pool last year. Nearly 70% of the

applicant pool received the highest quality

scores based on the screening rubric and other

qualifications. These data are summarized in

Exhibit #4. As of June 2011, 90% of the SSZ

and ASD schools were fully staffed, and the

entire district was nearly 80% staffed.

It is important to note that the STARS team used

the same selection model that was used for

recruitment last year. This level of progress

suggests that there is a widespread interest in

teaching in MCS despite the apparent financial

and political challenges. We are confident that

we are able to make smarter decisions about

who teaches in our classrooms, because we have

a larger, more qualified pool of candidates from

31

Hamer, I. (2011, April 28). Memphis schools make

quick gains [Letter to the editor]. The Tennessean.

Retrieved May 3, 2011, from www.tennessean.com.

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

27

which to choose. We also attribute the increased

number of applicants to the downfall in the

economy, the improved internal processes, and

the national attention on MCS‘ reform agenda.

The national attention on Memphis is salient,

given that 45% of the new applicant pool is out-

of-state candidates. The boost in the number of

applicants can also be attributed to the increased

collaboration with our recruiting and staffing

partner programs.

Better coordinate and leverage outside

partner-ships that recruit and place “high-

potential” teachers in MCS

Collaboration with the partner programs (i.e.,

TFA, MTR, and MTF) is critical to our recruit-

ment and staffing work. We are committed to

making partner programs priority to the extent

possible. The partner programs have contributed

to the successful recruiting and staffing efforts

for the 2011–2012 school year, such that TFA

recruited 150 candidates. MTR and MTF will

each place approximately 20–25 candidates.

Collectively, the partner programs made agree-

ments with the District to hire up to 226 teachers

in high-priority schools and feeder patterns for

the coming school year. Budget, position level-

ing, and surplus issues continue to challenge the

extent to which the candidates who were re-

cruited through these partner programs can be

placed in schools across the District.

Our strategy is to cluster teachers recruited

through partner programs in schools that have

high concentrations of high-need students. The

goal is to have 70% of partner program teachers

placed in schools with at least two other partner

candidate teachers. Similarly, a broader goal is

to have 70% of partner program teachers placed

in a priority feeder pattern with at least eight

other partner program teachers. Clustering

serves to build in support networks for partner

programs‘ teachers who are new to teaching and

perhaps new to the school district. The goal is to

cluster teachers from partner programs in feeder

patterns wherever possible to ensure that can-

didates from those programs are deployed as

intended to fill high-priority District vacancies.

For example, the partner programs are driven by

missions to place their teachers in high-needs

schools or schools that reside in the same feeder

patterns. For example, MTR has 15 schools in

which they want to place their resident teachers.

We have committed to assist MTR and other

partner programs in effectively clustering

teacher recruits across the district. The capacity

to cluster teachers in hard-to-staff schools and

feeder patterns is also a function of the flexi-

bility granted during MCS/MEA negotiations.

Raise the bar and improve the process for

granting tenure

Prior to the passage of the aforementioned

tenure law of April 2011, we were already on

our way to increasing the rigor for granting

tenure using the current evaluation process.

There are 674 pre-tenure (i.e., one to three years

of experience) teachers in MCS. Of the total

number of pre-tenure teachers, 306 teachers

were in their third year of teaching and possibly

eligible for tenure, based on their years of

service and licensure advancement. Deputy

Superintendent Hamer charged every member of

the TEI Cross-functional Management Team to

make this group of teachers a priority for

building a program of support and training to

ensure rigorous evaluation and tenure decisions.

Ms. Carla Holloway and Dr. Sherrish

Holloman32

collaborated with the Professional

32

Carla Holloway is the Coordinator of Teacher

Evaluation and Tenure, and Dr. Holloman is the

Coordinator of Teacher Support, Retention, and

Recognition for the Department of Teacher Talent

and Effectiveness.

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

28

Development and Staff In-Service (PDSI) team

to leverage some of the New Teacher Induction

sessions to reach out to these teachers and

facilitate conversations about what steps to take

to receive tenure. Data trends and feedback from

teachers confirm that the evaluation process has

not been implemented with fidelity, and it varies

across school buildings. Ms. Holloway and Dr.

Holloman worked with District personnel and

administrators (e.g., Labor Relations, Regional

Superintendents, Professional Development,

Human Resources) to begin an aggressive cam-

paign to inform and support teachers who are

eligible for tenure.

Support for pre-tenure teachers was an immed-

iate priority as evaluation and tenure February

deadlines were approaching quickly. The DTTE

and PDSI held three workshops for pre-tenure

teachers to receive professional development on

various aspects of evaluation and tenure. The

workshops covered domains of effectiveness to

help teachers better understand the current

framework for evaluation, including require-

ments, documentation, and outcomes. During

these workshops, principals, teachers, and other

school district personnel trained attendees on

several aspects of teaching (e.g., portfolio,

instructional strategies) that influence teacher

evaluation. Ms. Holloway conducted several

sessions that provided information and

experience with the summative evaluation con-

ference, documentation of teaching practice, and

strategies for teaching domains. Approximately

200 teachers attended each workshop, and the

general consensus was that the workshops were

very helpful and informative. Teachers‘ feed-

back also signaled the need to inform and

support teachers as soon as they are hired to

work. Specifically, their feedback exposed

district-wide challenges related to the lack of

information sharing and training available for

pre-tenure teachers. For instance, teachers made

comments like, ―I learned several things that I

should have been doing for three years. This

information would have aided and benefitted my

teaching not just the process [of getting tenure].‖

Another teacher responded, ―Excellent work-

shop! Although this is my third year teaching,

this is the first time that I have a clear under-

standing of the evaluation process.‖ The varia-

bility of understanding about evaluation among

teachers is comparable to the knowledge and

understanding of these processes among school

principals.

Increase the retention of effective teachers,

particularly in early in their careers

The aforementioned sessions held with pre-

tenure teachers were representative of the kinds

of strategies that we are exploring to increase the

retention of effective teachers. For the first time,

district-wide events were held to recognize and,

ultimately, retain our teachers. In May 2011, the

District joined 500 teachers in celebrating their

attainment of tenure. The Tenure Working

Group decided that the District needed to hold

its first Celebration of Tenure event to offer

recognition to teachers who achieve this

milestone. The tenure celebration was the first

retention strategy of its kind for acknowledging

major accomplishments of teachers.

The inaugural Prestige Awards event was held in

March 2011 to recognize peer-selected teachers

from each MCS school. The vision for the

Prestige Awards is to develop selection criteria

that are performance-based and aligned to the

TEM while maintaining the peer selection. MCS

and MEA co-sponsored an End of the Year

Celebration for teachers. This event was intend-

ed to celebrate the close of a successful school

year and show teachers that they are greatly

appreciated.

The tenure celebration, the year-end celebration,

and the Prestige Awards are examples of early

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

29

district-wide efforts to retain effective teachers.

We understand that some retention strategies are

unique to schools and have been successful at

the school level. We are collecting information

on best practices and exploring ways to bring

these strategies to scale. Additionally, we intend

to increase collaboration with partner organ-

izations33

to share and implement strategies.

Increase the turnover of our most

ineffective teachers

There is no easy way to remove ineffective

teachers from the classroom, so the steps to

begin to make this happen required careful

thought and attention. The first order of business

was to ensure that rigorous tenure decisions

were made using existing tools and processes

(i.e., the current evaluation tools and processes).

Fifty pre-tenure teachers were recommended for

non-reelection (i.e., received unsatisfactory eval-

uations). Twenty-five tenured teachers received

unsatisfactory evaluations. Of the recom-

mendations for non-reelection of pre-tenure

teachers (N = 50), 41 (82%) were actually

dismissed. The number of non-reelection re-

commendations upheld represents a significant

increase from last year when only 40% (N = 16)

non-reelections were upheld. The number of

tenured teachers to participate in tenure hearings

is not confirmed at this time; these files are still

under review. However, five (of the 25 reported)

have been meeting with Labor Relations to

determine if their cases will go to tenure

hearings. These data are summarized in Exhibit

#5. The processes that led to the increases in

teacher dismissals were aligned to the strategy

for improving the evaluation process, thus a

33

The TEI Partners represent business, education,

and community organizations that support the MCS

reform agenda. This group meets quarterly for

updates on the work and strategic planning.

detailed description appears in the case study for

Strategy No. 3: Better Support, Utilize, and

Compensate Teachers.

The numbers reported here fluctuated for several

months prior to final evaluation submissions. In

fact, they were higher at earlier points in the

term. When asked about the changes in the

number of teachers slated to receive unsatis-

factory evaluations, principals asserted that the

teachers‘ performance improved, so the status of

their evaluation changed. According to Ms.

Holloway, ―If a principal told me that the

teacher improved in a matter of weeks, I asked

them to outline what they did to help the teacher

improve so quickly so that we could bottle it up

and sell it to other principals.‖ She reported that

approximately 39 teachers improved after re-

ceiving support from their principals and District

training opportunities.

While there may have been some cases where

intensive support from principals may have, in

fact, improved teacher performance, it is also

very possible that principals did not exit a

teacher through the evaluation process. The

declining number of unsatisfactory evaluations

and non-reelections for employment is trouble-

some because it is symptomatic of the chal-

lenges to making difficult human capital

decisions. It is understood that principals cannot

make these kinds of decisions without the full

support and backing of the District (e.g., senior

administration and management, Labor Rela-

tions, Human Resources). How the District in-

tends to operationalize this support for principals

may still remain in question. For this reason,

principals may still be unconvinced or dis-

couraged about recommending teachers for non-

reelection or submitting unsatisfactory eval-

uations.

Initial conversations about the number of

teachers who were being dismissed for unsatis-

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

30

factory evaluations were controversial, because

progress toward raising the bar for tenure was

left open for interpretation. There were many

viewpoints considered before any conclusions

were made. The numbers ignited great concern

for many sitting in the conference room during a

cross-functional team meeting. Someone raised

the point that ―These numbers did not look to be

different from what has been seen in years past,

and if this is any indication of what will happen

in February, then have we really raised the bar?‖

It was absolutely the right question to ask, given

the fact that only 38 teachers were non-reelected

last year, and 50% (N=19) of these non-

reelections were overturned by labor relations

due to incorrect scoring or a lack of adequate

documentation of performance. The question of

our success at raising the bar for tenure based on

these numbers, albeit interim, prompted much

speculation. The responses ran the spectrum

from the notion of having more good teachers

than we initially thought to the question of

whether we should even be trying to raise the

bar for tenure at all.

The first thought was that there were no sig-

nificant changes in the numbers of teachers who

earned (or were denied) tenure under a new,

more rigorous regime. Deputy Superintendent

Hamer argued, ―Our orientation, process, and

infrastructure have changed; therefore, we

should have demonstrable differences in the

data.‖ It was clear that he and others around the

table were disheartened by the threat of reaching

the status quo for another year. The back-and-

forth discussion and reactions to the number of

teachers recommended for non-reelection in the

meeting also revealed that there were no clear-

cut arguments to be made. Further, any potential

confounds to the numbers of teachers up for

non-reelection could be rationalized depending

on various circumstances. For example, it is

possible that scoring/rating being a function of

repeated use of the instrument contributed to the

small numbers of teachers who received un-

satisfactory evaluations. Lastly, there may more

unsatisfactory evaluations submitted if prin-

cipals felt supported in their making courageous

decisions, and, in turn, those decisions were

upheld.

Ms. Holloway shared a different perspective.

She said, ―The key is not how many non-

reelections we have but whether or not they will

be upheld.‖ She continued to explain that the

trend is to have most of the non-reelections

overturned, so to have non-reelections upheld at

a higher rate would be a clear indication of

progress. At the core of Ms. Holloway‘s state-

ment was the fact that these kinds of process

improvements have the potential for resulting

change — perhaps not radical change — but

change nonetheless. The process improvements

to which she is referring pertain to the in-

formation and materials provided to principals in

preparation for the 2011 evaluation cycle. At the

very least, explanations offered here illustrate

the importance of not taking a purely quan-

titative look at what is happening with respect to

the evaluation practices, and, ultimately, tenure

recommendations of principals.

The varying claims and opinions of the progress

notwithstanding, one thing is certain. What we

were able to accomplish with regard to increases

in the turnover of ineffective teachers was done

when other school districts withheld making

such decisions in anticipation of a new evalu-

ation system.

We also started to look at other factors that re-

late to teacher performance and student achieve-

ment. Historical data on teachers‘ professional

behavior (e.g., attendance, discipline referrals,

and transfers) are the only sources of infor-

mation available at this time. A data review

revealed staggering trends in teacher behavior,

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

31

particularly teacher attendance. Approximately

20% of teachers used more than 10 sick days

during the 2009–2010 school year with 917

teachers‘ absences falling in the range of 11–20

days during the same year. These data were

cleaned up only to include absences coded as

illness by the payroll system and to exclude

absences that reflect approved leave. Urgent and

courageous action was taken by Deputy

Superintendent Hamer and the DTTE staff to

address attendance abuse.

Over 800 MCS teachers were flagged for ex-

cessive absenteeism based on August 2009–May

2010 payroll and Human Resources data (see

Exhibit #6). These teachers received a letter

from Deputy Superintendent Hamer that in-

formed them of their attendance status and

offered clarity around the available resources to

improve these attendance trends. The letter was

not an official reprimand. Rather, it was in-

tended to raise the awareness of the pervasive

attendance problem and to direct teachers to the

appropriate District resources to address the

issue. The letter asked teachers to call if they felt

like they received the letter in error. For

example, teachers were asked to contact Human

Resources if their absences should have been

documented as approved leave but had not been

reported as such. Likewise, teachers were asked

to contact Dr. Holloman if they needed help

identifying support services for this issue.

Principals also received correspondence with a

listing of the teachers in their buildings who

received the letters about the attendance trends

of their teachers. The letter advised principals

that the goal was not to provoke disciplinary

action but to communicate the District‘s ob-

jective to pay closer attention to these matters.

Needless to say, as soon as the letter went out, a

small firestorm ensued. The backlash from the

distribution of the attendance letter made things

a little uncomfortable, to say the least. Tequilla

Banks noted, ―If we didn‘t do this, we wouldn‘t

have the courage to do any of the effectiveness

work.‖

Several District departments and MEA received

calls from teachers who wanted to voice their

concerns and report inaccuracies about the

attendance data. DTTE staff members and

personnel in other departments (e.g., Labor

Relations and Benefits offices) were inundated

with calls from teachers justifying their absences

and reporting that they were, in fact, absent for

legitimate (usually health and family-related)

reasons. Many of these teachers mentioned that

they had notified their principals of the leave

and had documentation to verify the reason for

the extended absences.

The best explanation for these kinds of situations

is related to the need to have access to clean,

reliable data across the district. The initial run of

the attendance data was done using the payroll

and Human Resources systems, but these data

systems do not cross-reference all of the systems

in Human Resources that manage approved

leave data. For instance, teachers who were on

leave based on the Family and Medical Leave

Act (FMLA) would not appear in the payroll

database because the payroll system codes

everything as a sick day, and there is no code for

FMLA in that system. Further, application for

leave can only be made when there are 15

consecutive absences or an amount deemed

appropriate for intermittent medical leave. The

number of teachers, who indicated that they

were on an approved leave, though not

officially, is a sign that there is no clear protocol

for getting an approved medical leave. Further,

if the protocol is clear, it has not been clearly

communicated to teachers. To the extent that the

proper documentation was submitted, any

mistakes in attendance records were reconciled.

Follow-up letters of apology were sent to 179

teachers who received the letter in error. The

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

32

follow-up letter also included information that

clarified the process for getting an approved

leave.

Comparative analyses of teachers‘ attendance

from August 2010–May 2011, show that 388

teachers have been absent more than 11 days

during this time span; 212 teachers were class-

ified as repeat attendance offenders. We have

not yet determined the consequences for the

repeat offenders, but every effort is going to be

made to monitor the data for every district

employee, including teachers.

Conclusion

Whereas the strategy to make smarter decisions

about who teaches our students fell short of

accomplishment last year, with the exception of

the recruitment and staffing work, there were

many victories for a number of this year‘s

milestones. We made additional progress in re-

cruitment and staffing by initiating an earlier

hiring timeline and making interdepartmental

processes more efficient. In the absence of our

new evaluation framework (i.e., the TEM), we

were able to increase the number of teachers

(pre-tenure and tenured) who received un-

satisfactory evaluations, thereby removing

ineffective teachers from the classroom.

Despite the apparent progress made for this

strategy, there is still so much to be done with

making better decisions about who teaches.

Indeed, there are still positions that have been

vacant since the beginning of the school year,

and staffing remains vulnerable given changes in

enrollment. The threat of State takeover and the

budget crisis are also major barriers to progress.

While outcomes of the recent changes to the

recruitment and staffing processes are yet to be

determined, the outlook is promising. Strategies

used to increase the turnover of ineffective

teachers are iterative at this point, yet they are a

good starting point from which to begin paying

attention to the factors that could lead to mar-

ginal performance and low student achievement.

The work to date will be a solid point of refer-

ence and experience going forward.

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps

With budget cuts and lay-offs looming, the

growing surplus pool of teachers is becoming a

real issue. The greatest concern is the dis-

crepancy between the number of surplus

teachers and vacancies which is dispro-

portionately affecting some subject areas (e.g.,

English, History, and some middle-school

courses). In other words, we have more dis-

placed teachers than vacancies. This has major

implications for our capacity to recruit and hire

external candidates and candidates from our

partner programs in schools other than the

schools and feeder patterns identified as high-

priority and hard-to-staff. STARS plans to

continue to collect data through exit surveys

and/or interviews from teachers who decide to

resign or retire.

The coordination of partner programs and

partner organizations is an evolving endeavor.

As the needs of the District change for re-

cruitment and staffing, the collaboration with

these groups becomes an important resource. We

will continue to staff schools with partner

program candidates and to expand resources

made available through these programs to

teachers across the District, not just for teachers

who are placed by the partner programs.

The turnover of ineffective teachers is a com-

plicated topic that highlights the need to address

a litany of human capital and operational issues.

While the District purports to establish a level of

expectation for professionalism, the enforcement

and consequences of these expectations are

ambiguous. The District has historically

maintained a progressive discipline plan for all

employees, but it has never associated an

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

33

expected attendance rate (i.e., percentage rate) to

this plan and to do so is problematic. Moreover,

sick days are accrued in accordance with the

state-wide retirement system. The number of

sick days allotted violates the District‘s practice

of having teachers be absent only 5% of the days

during the school year. Most teachers view sick

days as time earned and, therefore, believe that

they cannot be punished for leave that is given to

them by the State regardless of a District

expectation or mandate.

We are working to adapt tenure processes to

align with the TEM evaluation tool and the new

State tenure legislation. More specifically, we

are considering establishing a Peer Assistance

and Review (PAR) program for MCS. The

Tenure Working Group and Tenure Task Force

are beginning to identify appropriate elements of

a PAR program to be implemented during the

2011–2012 school year.

The disconnect between policy and practice on

many of the strategies discussed here is costly

and demands revisions to policies that address

professional standards. In the not-too-distant

future, every effort must be made to align

policies with practice, align Human Resources

data with policy, and develop training and com-

munications for school- and district-level per-

sonnel on the policies and their implications.

The Division of Policy and Legislation is work-

ing through the policies now, trying to make

sure that teachers are held to accurate and

appropriate standards.

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

34

Exhibit #4: Smarter Decisions About Who Teaches: Staffing Progress to Date

Smarter Decisions About Who Teaches

April 2010 April 2011

~ 3,000 candidates started an application

5,400 candidates started an application

1,800 candidates submitted an application

3,100+ candidates submitted an application

85 candidates met the requirements of the Teach Memphis selection model

1,900+ candidates met therequirements of the Teach Memphis selection model

21 candidates submitted documentation and been approved for new teacher pool

1,100+ candidates submitted documentation and been approved for new teacher pool

• 90%+ increase in

candidates ready for hire at

this date

• 55% of the targeted total

pool built

• 70%+ of the pool has

quality score of 1 or 2

• 62% of pool has previous

teaching experience

Staffing Progress to Date:

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

35

Exhibit #5: Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches: Evaluation Progress

Smarter Decisions About Who Teaches

Evaluation Progress to Date:

SY 2009-10 SY 2010-11

Number of Pre-Tenure Teachers Evaluated 1,361 1,862

Number of Pre-Tenure Teachers with Unsatisfactory Evaluations

40(3% of all

evaluations)

50(2.7% of all evaluations)

Number of Pre-Tenure Teachers Actually Dismissed (including upheld evaluations, resignations and dismissals)

16(40% of

unsatisfactory evaluations)

41(82% of

unsatisfactory evaluations)

Number of Tenured Teachers with Unsatisfactory Evaluations

17 25

Number of Tenured Teachers Actually Dismissed

5(29% of all

unsatisfactory evaluations)

--(File Reviews still in

process)

Make Smarter Decisions about Who Teaches

36

Exhibit #6: Teacher Absences during the 2009-2010 School Year

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

0

148

1-10

195

11-20

3,304

21-30

2,304

31-50

571

51-100

146

101-150

16

151-200

5

Number of Teachers by Number of Absences, 2009-2010

Number of Absences

Num

ber of T

eachers

738 teachers

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

37

Strategy No. 3: Better Support, Utilize, and

Compensate Teachers

“This work centers on teachers, and we cannot

continue to cavalierly fail to support, recognize,

and retain our teachers.‖

Irving Hamer

Teacher support has become a major program of

work with regard to teacher effectiveness. The

consensus is that support strategies must under-

gird the teacher effectiveness reform. Support

for teachers must be comprehensive, differ-

entiated, and ongoing to appropriately inform

any performance and career management de-

cisions for teachers. A new milestone was added

to this strategy for Year 2 as a result of the

growing need to address several gaps in service

and support to MCS teachers. The specific Year

2 milestones for this strategy are to:

Improve the teacher evaluation process;

Connect professional support to indi-

vidual need;

Create new and differentiated career

paths;

Establish a new base compensation

structure;

Strategically place the best teachers

where they are needed most;

Cluster ―high-potential‖ teacher recruits

in schools with the most high-need

students; and

Build a service-oriented culture in the

District toward teachers.

Context

Very little progress resulted from the strategy to

support, utilize, and compensate teachers during

Year 1 of the TEI. A number of factors influ-

enced the marginal success of this strategy,

particularly the staffing of the Department of

Teacher Talent and Effectiveness (DTTE)34

. The

absence of initiative owners was especially felt

where team members were needed to pioneer

work that had not taken shape in prior years,

namely improvement of the evaluation process,

development of professional support programs,

and a new base-compensation schedule.

The existing evaluation process and tool (i.e.,

Tennessee Framework for Evaluation) are

completely observation-based and have not

provided a clear and accurate reflection of

teachers‘ performance across the district.

Historically, nearly 98% of MCS teachers

receive a satisfactory evaluation. These perform-

ance ratings are inconsistent with the per-

formance levels of many of our schools. Though

a multidimensional measure of teacher effect-

iveness is imminent, there is an urgent need to

improve the use and implementation of the

existing evaluation process in the meantime.

34

The DTTE was formerly named the Office of

Teacher Talent and Effectiveness. The name change

occurred as a part of Superintendent Cash’s

reorganization of Memphis City Schools in

September 2010.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

38

Memphis City Schools‘ repertoire for teacher

support includes new teacher induction, a men-

tor program, and a menu of online and in-person

professional development courses. Admittedly,

the District falls short of providing teachers with

professional support that is linked specifically to

their individual needs.

For decades, the MCS compensation schedule

has been based on degree attainment and years

of experience (i.e., steps) and designed such that

a teacher has to work in the District approx-

imately 18 years (i.e., 18 steps) to reach his or

her maximum earning potential at approximately

$65,000. Nearly 4,800 (of total 7,000) teachers

have worked in the District long enough to reach

this point on the compensation schedule.

The existing compensation system lends itself to

much scrutiny. First, the system is not attractive

to teacher candidates in today‘s market. The

District is not able to compete for top candidates

because it cannot offer competitive wages and

benefits within the current framework for

compensation. Second, it implies that teachers

are homogenous and operate at the same or

similar levels of teacher effectiveness. Third, it

asserts the underlying assumption that the

teaching profession is static rather than a

dynamic path of professional growth and ex-

perience. Very few MCS personnel have the

knowledge and command for revamping the

compensation work. Therefore, we have limited

capacity to do the research and planning for

building a new compensation schedule for

16,000 employees and 7,000 retirees. The op-

portunity to build an entirely new, performance-

based compensation system is accompanied by

an equally singular opportunity to differentiate

the career paths of MCS teachers.

Similar to the existing compensation schedule,

teacher roles and career development are driven

by years of service. Financial incentives that

teachers receive work like commissions wherein

teachers are paid a pre-determined amount of

money for additional responsibilities or in-

volvement in various District-run programs or

activities. The plan is to align the new base-

compensation schedule with the differentiated

career paths for teachers and have both of them

work as performance-based systems.

Implementation and Findings

In July 2010, Tequilla Banks was appointed to

be the Executive Director of the Department of

Teacher Talent and Effectiveness (DTTE) after

the resignation of Dr. David Hill35

. Ms. Banks

set her early sights on staffing the core teacher

effectiveness staff. Within three months, Ms.

Banks hired Lachell Boyd (Teacher Liaison),

Carla Holloway (Coordinator of Teacher

Evaluation and Tenure), Dr. Sherrish Holloman

(Coordinator of Retention and Recognition),

Jessica Lotz (Special Projects Coordinator),

Marqui Fifer (Special Projects Coordinator for

Evaluation and Tenure), and Jennifer Chandler

(Special Projects Coordinator for Reflective

Practice) to engineer the implementation of

several key strategies of the teacher

effectiveness work. The DTTE is supported by

two executive assistants (Lee Brother and

Miesha Turner), and Donna James is the

research assistant for the team. Staffing of Year

1 positions is practically complete, with the

recent hire of Mike Neal as the Coordinator of

Career Management. As a result of strides made

with staffing the DTTE, Ms. Banks and her team

have jump-started much of the work that lay

dormant during the last year.

35

Dr. David Hill was the Executive Director for the

TEI 2009–2010.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

39

Improve the teacher evaluation process

Because the new evaluation system (i.e., TEM)

does not take effect until 2011–2012, emphasis

had to be placed on improving practice and

outcomes related to the current use of the

Tennessee Framework of Evaluation. Ms.

Holloway, a former elementary school principal,

spearheaded the work to prepare principals to

make better use of the evaluation tool and

process. Disparate knowledge about the

evaluation process and use of the tool among

teachers and principals contributed most to the

status of evaluations in MCS. Ms. Holloway led

the charge to help principals conduct teacher

evaluations with an increased level of fidelity. In

the early fall, all principals were given a

Principal Toolkit for Evaluation. The toolkit

outlined specific deadlines, documentation, and

other requirements for completing a teacher

evaluation. The purpose of the principals‘ toolkit

was to provide principals with a step-by-step

manual on how to conduct evaluations. It

covered general topics (e.g., evaluation forms

and deadlines), sample tools for classroom

observations, and best practices for managing

the evaluation process. The toolkit was

disseminated to principals during the fall

semester in time to begin their classroom

observations.

In addition to the toolkit, principals attended a

series of training sessions on each of the toolkit

components, including training for under-

standing the domains of effectiveness, com-

pleting classroom observations, conducting the

summative meeting, and scoring the evaluation

paperwork. Most of the training took place

during the monthly principals‘ meetings. Ms.

Holloway also recorded Mediasite36

videos

36

Mediasite (mediasite.mcsk12.net) is the District’s

repository for online professional development

videos and materials.

entitled Conducting More Rigorous Teacher

Evaluations and Navigating the Evaluation

Process37

for principals and teachers, respect-

tively.

Because many principals struggled to locate

teachers‘ past evaluation records and documen-

tation, Ms. Holloway also facilitated the transfer

of prior years‘ evaluation files for teachers who

have transferred from one school to another.

Unlike years past, principals would have help in

retrieving teachers‘ previous evaluations to

complete their files. Further, they would be able

to use the files to understand better teachers‘

past performance trends and the plans of

improvement that were associated with those

evaluations.

This year, Ms. Holloway coordinated changes in

the way evaluations were submitted and re-

viewed. She began working with principals in

late October and early November 2010 to

identify teachers who were likely to receive an

unsatisfactory evaluation. The purpose of her

request was two-fold. First, she wanted to help

principals identify teachers who needed targeted

support as a function of the results from their

classroom observations. Principals submitted the

names of teachers who could potentially receive

an unsatisfactory evaluation to Ms. Holloway.

She then worked with principals to develop

plans of improvement for teachers who needed

additional assistance and support in their

practice. Second, she wanted to help principals

to get a head-start on gathering and maintaining

adequate documentation. Ms. Holloway and

regional staff reviewed files and documentation

37

Conducting More Rigorous Teacher Evaluations

and Navigating the Evaluation Process is available at

http://mediasite.mcsk12.net/mediasite5/Catalog/pa

ges/catalog.aspx?catalogId=f06e4d93-f18e-49ac-

bbe8-1192588b28b5.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

40

before submitting completed evaluations to

Human Resources to minimize technical errors

that typically lead to overturned unsatisfactory

evaluations. Principals reported that the ad-

ditional training and support that they received

during this evaluation cycle were very helpful.

Principals reported that they received most of

the information from the monthly principals‘

meeting, but one-on-one conferences and

Mediasite presentations were helpful as well. If

all goes according to plan for the next school

year, there will be no need to manually review

and submit evaluation documents. An electronic

evaluation system would improve the evaluation

process by facilitating the process, storing data,

and streamlining documentation.

The pursuit of an electronic evaluation system to

streamline and expedite the evaluation process

began at the start of the school year. The

purpose of an electronic evaluation system is to

reduce the amount of paperwork and time

involved in evaluating teachers, particularly in

preparation for the State mandate to evaluate

every teacher and principal in the district

beginning 2011–2012. The Online Principal and

Teacher Evaluation System (OPTES) is the

electronic system designed to facilitate all

educators‘ (e.g., principals, assistant principals,

and teachers) evaluations for MCS, namely the

observation component of the TEM. RANDA

Solutions, the company that assisted with the

observation rubric field test, was selected as the

vendor to build the OPTES system. The system

will house an IMPACT-based rubric38

, maintain

a scheduling and management protocol, and

archive relevant data to facilitate classroom

observations. OPTES has website and iPad®

(or

38

The approved observation rubric for MCS will be a

customized version of the IMPACT rubric that was

selected at the close of the observation rubric field

test.

Android) applications for ease of use. The

OPTES system and the rubric were to be

completed on a target date of June 30, 2011.

Training on the evaluation framework (including

the rubric) and the electronic system was set for

July 2011.

Principals were introduced to OPTES during

their monthly training sessions as well as during

the summer professional development exper-

ience for principals (i.e., Forum for Innovative

Leadership). They were optimistic about its

utility in managing observations. However, they

had several questions about which documents

are necessary for completing the evaluation in

addition to the observation rubric. For example,

the existing framework for evaluation required

appraisal records, professional growth plans,

educator information records, and summative

documents. Ms. Holloway plans to survey

teachers and principals to determine what

documentation is appropriate for the new

evaluation framework. Once determined, the

documents will be included in the electronic

system.

There have been some challenges in the

development of OPTES. The biggest challenge

has been the timely completion of the devel-

opment and testing phases. The original plan

was to have OPTES ready for district-wide use,

at least for pilot, during the spring 2011

evaluation cycle; however, no such pilot

occurred due to changes in the requirements for

the system and delays in finding a vendor to

build the system. The challenges revealed that

the deficiencies in the District‘s technology

infrastructure have major implications for our

attempts to improve processes and practices.

While the primary focus at this time for OPTES

is classroom observation, the application could

evolve to include value-added data and other

teacher effectiveness data. The MCS OPTES

team (composed of Carla Holloway and Isabella

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

41

Wilson39

) is thinking through ways to modify

the online evaluation system in preparation for

implementation of the TEM.

Connect professional support opportunities

to individual need

Since the inception of the TEI proposal, one of

the cornerstones of the work has been to develop

a system whereby support strategies would be

customized to meet the individual needs of

teachers.

The Professional Development and Staff In-

service (PDSI) team has facilitated much of the

progress in this area. In June 2010, the MCS

Board of Commissioners approved a

Professional Development policy40

that requires

all teachers to complete a minimum of 57 hours

of professional development and reinforces the

District‘s commitment to time professional

development to teachers‘ individual need. The

professional development requirement is parsed

out into ―state-required in-service days (40

hours) and an additional 17 hours of minimum

yearly required professional development

performed online and/or during times reserved

for afterschool staff activities.‖ The professional

development policy was responsive to the

District‘s need to address specific needs in

specific areas of content and pedagogy and

preceded the strategies addressed here.

The District has seized the opportunity to change

the character of the traditional ―sit and get‖

professional development experiences. MCS has

moved toward more targeted attempts to reach

39

Isabella Wilson is the first MCS Broad Fellow and

Chief of Staff for the Deputy Superintendent of

Academic Operations, Technology, and Innovations.

40 The MCS Professional Development policy is

available at www.mcsk12.net/policy/policy.asp.

teachers through face-to-face and virtual

learning experiences. The PDSI team has

coordinated the move toward more virtual

learning experiences for teachers and other

district personnel. In addition to expanding the

online repertoire for professional development

courses, the manner in which teachers

participate in first-of-the-year professional

development has drastically changed. For two

years now, MCS has also worked toward

delivering individualized professional support to

teachers in the form of a district-wide

professional development experience for

teachers prior to the start of the school year,

namely the Practitioners‘ Summit. For the

second annual event, nearly 7,000 teachers

convened at Bellevue Baptist Church during the

first week of August to attend sessions on

various topics and content areas. They were able

to select sessions that were relevant to their

professional responsibility for the coming school

year.

The PDSI office has also worked to align current

professional development offerings to the

existing Tennessee Framework for Evaluation.

More specifically, PDSI team created and

disseminated a professional development

resource guide as a tool that principals can use to

help their teachers find the most appropriate

professional development opportunities. In like

manner, the PDSI team is working to create an

updated resource guide that aligns professional

development offerings to the MCS Framework

for Teaching and Learning, with particular focus

on the domains and indicators of the new rubric.

Plans for establishing a more robust

infrastructure of support for teachers are under-

way in ways that are distinct from professional

development. The hallmark initiative for this

strategy was the reflective practice pilot for

spring (February–April) 2011. The purpose of

the Reflective Practice Pilot was to identify best

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

42

practices and innovative strategies for sup-

porting teachers‘ practices with timely and

actionable feedback. It was also designed to test

scalability and ease of implementation with each

strategy for delivering feedback and support to

teachers. Therefore, the five components of the

Reflective Practice Pilot to test mechanisms of

support were decided to be: 1) written feedback,

2) co-investigation, 3) video coaching, 4) school

innovation, and 5) pre-tenure support. The

objectives of the Reflective Practice Pilot are:

To provide feedback to one-third of

teachers;

To inform plans for 2011–2012 district-

wide implementation; and

To transform the mindset to focus on

continuous improvement of practice.

According to Ms. Banks, ―This could be the

most critical pilot because until now, TEI has

been an imaginary friend (or enemy) to teachers.

This represents tangible pieces to supporting our

teachers.‖

Each component is described in detail here with

particular attention given to the strategy for

delivering feedback to participating teachers. It

is important to note that each of these pilots

makes use of emerging strategies for promoting

ongoing support and development for effective

teaching. The strategies and original plan of

engagement described here are summarized in

Exhibit #7.

Written Feedback

For the purposes of this discussion, the written

feedback pilot is synonymous with the obser-

vation rubric field test that is described in detail

in the part of the case study that outlines

Strategy No.1: Define and Measure Effective

Teaching.

Teachers (N = 600) who participated in the

observation field test received written feedback

after their observations. Seventy-three observers

(e.g., principals, assistant principals, content

specialists, and contracted observers) entered 50

schools to conduct classroom observations with

the three rubrics41

that were field tested. After

observations were complete, the observers de-

livered written feedback in the form of obser-

vation notes and brief narratives written on the

actual rubrics. At the very least, teachers should

know what behaviors were observed in the

classroom, so this pilot tested the impact of

giving teachers written feedback in the form of

the actual rubric that was used to observe the

classroom practice. Observers were trained on

the rubrics as well as how to deliver feedback.

The written feedback pilot ended March 11,

2011.

At the close of the written feedback pilot,

participants (teachers and observers) attended

feedback sessions to discuss their experiences in

the written feedback pilot. In the teachers‘

feedback sessions, many teachers reported that

their scores did not necessarily match the

numerical scores that they received on the

rubric. Likewise, the written feedback was less

helpful if the comments were generated from the

rubric verbatim. Observers stated that the written

feedback was beneficial and helped teachers to

behave differently in the classroom. For some

reason, many of the observers were not aware of

the fact that the completed rubric was given to

the teachers. Interestingly, some observers stated

that they were uncomfortable with having the

written feedback shared with the teachers who

were observed for the pilot because they were

rigid and straightforward with their comments.

41

MCS field tested three rubrics for the observation

rubric field test: MCS Revised Framework (current),

TAP, and DC IMPACT.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

43

In other words, observers were very honest in

their feedback, but admitted that they might not

have been as honest in their feedback if they had

known that the feedback would be shared. More

specific outcomes from the observation rubric

field test (or written feedback pilot) are

described in detail in Strategy No. 1: Define and

Measure Effective Teaching.

Co-Investigation

The co-investigation pilot was designed to help

deepen our understanding of what happens when

teachers have in-depth conversations with peer

observers about what happens in their class-

rooms. This model was intended to provide

teachers with in-person, problem-solving ses-

sions to inform and improve practice through

root-cause analysis. This method of reflective

practice is quite extensive, because it involves

having ongoing conversations about practice,

rather than engaging in a one-time or static

attempt to deliver feedback on practice. The co-

investigation requires a 1:1 ratio of feedback

givers to feedback receivers. We enlisted the

help of strategic partners who have worked

extensively to engage teachers in this type of

reflective practice. Teach for America (TFA)

trained lead-teacher observers to conduct root-

cause analyses in problem-solving sessions with

teachers. Lead teachers were trained how to

observe teachers, use the co-investigation forms,

conduct a co-investigation dialogue, and move

the cooperating teachers to consider and act on

next steps. The TFA training session was also

made available through Mediasite for other

teachers to view.

Four teachers from two schools42

were trained

on the co-investigation model. The teachers

42

Two schools in the Southeast Regions, Fairview

Middle School and Hanley Elementary School,

participated in the co-investigation pilot.

were observed twice — once in-person and once

by video — during the pilot period, and they

engaged in in-depth discussions with the lead

teachers who observed them. The model of co-

investigation tested during the pilot differed

slightly from Teach for America‘s original

method of problem-solving coaching in that the

TFA model does not usually involve cameras.

As a result of the collaboration during the pilot,

TFA has ordered cameras and plan to in-

corporate aspects of video coaching into the

support infrastructure that they provide to their

corps members. Monica Jordan is working with

TFA during the summer to develop a hybrid

model for co-investigation that will include the

use of cameras and adjust the strategy so that

teachers can maximize use of the method

without compromising the time needed to carry

out other responsibilities and duties.

One of the challenges for implementing the co-

investigation model was related to the amount of

time needed to execute all components of the

model. Teachers reported that the experience

was incredibly eye-opening and transformative

for their practice. However, this strategy was

extremely time-consuming when the teacher

pairs began to analyze the lessons. They also

stated that it would be almost impossible to

engage in this level of reflection in addition to

their existing responsibilities in the school

buildings. Because the model is so compre-

hensive, teachers needed to be released from

teaching time to carry it out. They do not have

time to prepare for the model, and time is critical

to implementation of this type of reflective

practice. We do not want teachers to have to

give up any activities that already enrich and

sharpen their skills in their schools. Analyzing

the entire lessons and engaging in the co-

investigative dialogues is very time-consuming.

There is more time needed to prepare for the

lesson than to actually teach the lesson. In terms

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

44

of bringing this method to scale, we have to find

a way to have a deep level of conversation and

analysis in the current context of what happens

in the classroom.

Video Coaching (MET Sub Study)

The purpose of the video coaching (i.e., MET

sub-study) pilot was to identify the coaching

strategies that have the most impact on

classroom practice. The background and purpose

of the MET Sub Study are described in the

context of the expansion of the existing MET

research project in Strategy No. 1: Define and

Measure Effective Teaching. For the purposes of

linking it to the Reflective Practice Pilot, the

type and level of feedback delivery are the focus

here.

Monica Jordan has led the charge to introduce

innovative technology for the purposes of

reflective practice and professional growth. We

received additional grant funding to conduct the

sub study to investigate video-enhanced self-

reflection and video-enhanced coaching as

potential forms of teacher support. The MET

Sub Study is designed to have coaches provide

feedback to teachers through five types of

reflective and coaching techniques: 1) personal

reflections, 2) real-time coaching, 3) remote

coaching, 4) remote real-time coaching, and 5)

video-enhanced coaching. The personal re-

flections and real-time coaching have already

gained traction with our teachers.

Ms. Jordan and Dr. Kristyn Klei Borrerro43

identified lead teachers and coaches to be trained

as real-time and/or remote coaches. Participants

(N = 300) are MET and non-MET teachers who

could benefit from the feedback and support

43

Dr. Kristyn Klei Borrerro is the Chief Program

Office for the Center for Transformative Teacher

Training (www.transformativeteachertraining.com).

central to the methodology. All coaches are

being trained on Lee Canter‘s No-Nonsense

Nurture Model and real-time coaching.

The No-Nonsense Nurture Model is a four-step

method that teachers can use to establish a

positive classroom culture by reducing dis-

ruptive behavior and increasing time on-task for

students. Teachers participated in the No-

Nonsense Nurture training at eight schools44

where there were at least five teacher volunteers

interested in being trained. To date, approx-

imately 300 teachers have received in-person

training. Many teachers who were trained on the

No- Nonsense Nurture model applied the stra-

tegies on their own with great success. Teachers

admitted that they were ―skeptical at first but

tried the strategies, and they worked imme-

diately.‖ The plan going forward is to conduct

one school deep-dive per region (August 2011–

January 2012).

Upon completion of the No Nonsense Nurture

training, some teachers also agreed to participate

in real-time coaching. Real-time coaching in-

volves observation of practice and feedback

delivery during an actual lesson. Teachers who

are being coached wear an ear bud and receive

real-time feedback on their teaching from a lead

teacher/coach who is standing in the back of the

classroom. Nine MCS teachers have been

trained to deliver real-time coaching, with two

of these coaches showing exceptional promise in

using the train-the-trainer model.

The No Nonsense Nurture model and real-time

coaching are new territory for us in terms of

supporting teachers; therefore, feedback from

44

Teachers at the following schools received No

Nonsense Nurturer Training: American Way Middle,

Cherokee Elementary, Craigmont Middle, Fairview

Middle, Hamilton Elementary, Kirby Middle, Kirby

High, and White Station Middle.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

45

early adopters of these methods was instru-

mental in our decisions to implement on a larger

scale in the upcoming school year. Two hundred

teachers responded to a survey about various

teacher support strategies, and 83% of teachers

indicated that they would be interested in

participating in real-time or remote coaching.

Also, the teachers were interested in discussing

best practices with peers (60%), self-reflection

(39%), deep-dive conversations with peers

(26%), and watching/sharing videos of lessons

with their peers (22%). The responses suggest

that teachers are more interested in opportunities

to collaborate with peers for reflective practice

through coaching or information sharing. The

training resonated with the people and there has

been a dramatic increase in the number of those

interested in being real-time coaches. Teachers

reported that one of the benefits of the No

Nonsense Nurture training and real-time coach-

ing was the immediate individualized feedback.

It typically takes about three sessions to see the

full impact of real-time coaching, but many of

the teachers who were coached in this manner

experienced change instantly. There were in-

stances where the training was met with some

resistance. There was one instance where a

teacher with a good track record for performance

was not particularly receptive to the feedback

that was given during the real-time coaching ex-

perience. ―I‘ve been teaching all of these years

and no one has said anything differently [about

my performance] until now.‖ This sentiment is

an indication of potential challenges related to

bringing this coaching strategy to scale,

especially in a context where feedback and

routine performance evaluations were sparse.

The momentum and impact of the No Nonsense

Nurture Model and real-time coaching in our

schools caught the attention of the father of

these methods, Lee Canter, who wants to visit

Memphis to see the impact that these strategies

have had on our teachers in the short-term.

School Innovation

The school innovation pilot was designed to be a

mini-grant protocol whereby schools sought

nominal funds for the chance to build their own

methods of reflective practice. The goal was to

determine which practices are appropriate for

school-level reflective practice as well as which

practices are scalable district-wide. Schools'

teams were asked to devise a program that

would facilitate a culture of continuous improve-

ment. Successful proposals would result in

principals and teachers having access to District

resources (e.g., cameras) and funding to test

their reflective practice plans.

In January, school teams convened to develop

their reflective practice proposals. Fourteen

school teams attended the initial working

session, and 10 schools submitted a school

innovation proposal for consideration. The

school plans were to include the following

components: 1) some form of observation prac-

tice and feedback; 2) innovative strategies; and

3) the use of technology. Once submitted, the

Regional Superintendents conducted a blind

review of proposals and commented on strengths

and areas of improvement for each. Likewise,

members of the DTTE team also reviewed the

proposals and provided feedback to the school

teams. Some proposals were on target for

developing reflective practice plans for their

schools; however, there were also proposals that

missed the mark in terms of proposing to use the

resources for reasons other than reflective

practice. The wide range of responses to build-

ing a program for reflective practice can be

attributed to a number of factors, including a

misunderstanding about the request for proposal

and what was meant by the term reflective

practice.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

46

Initially, little guidance was given to teams on

developing their plans, because the teams were

given room to set the parameters for their work.

Some school teams submitted proposals for

programs that have a direct link for improving

student achievement (e.g., computer labs and

programs) but have little connection to en-

couraging teachers to engage in active and

ongoing reflection of their work. The DTTE

team resolved to send correspondence to all

schools clarifying the definition of reflective

practice and offering the opportunity for schools

to submit revised plans that established more-

directed plans for reflective practice. Two

schools were chosen to execute their plans for

school innovation. The school pilots were

scheduled to begin by mid-February 2011, and

end at the close of the school year; however, the

schools were unable to get started due to

challenges with securing the cameras for use of

reflective practice.

Pre-Tenure Support

The purpose of the pre-tenure support pilot was

to provide teachers with a quality mentoring

experience to help new teachers reflect on and

improve their practice in preparation for

achieving tenure. The pre-tenure support pilot

was completely derivative of the existing

mentoring program that is provided through the

Office of Professional Development and Staff

In-Service (PDSI) for novice teachers.

Currently, a mentor is assigned to each new

teacher; protégés participate in several sessions

with their mentors, and mentors are expected to

document their work and activities with

protégés. Although the mentoring program has

been operational for years, it has received mixed

reviews from teachers and principals. Teachers

report that the implementation of the mentoring

program is disparate across the district and is in

need of evaluation. The outcomes and

implementation of the mentoring programs are

inconclusive due in large part to the lack of

clarity around the expectations of those serving

as mentors and the lack of data to validate the

implementation and utility of the program. In

response to these concerns, the pre-tenure

support pilot was an opportunity to evaluate the

current programs and explore innovative

strategies for supporting new teachers.

The pre-tenure support pilot was intended to

integrate reflective practice opportunities into a

mentorship model of development. The pilot

also serves as a means to shore up experiences

for early career teachers so that they are oriented

and developed through more focused and

deliberate interactions with mentors. The re-

flective practice dimension of the pilot was

linked with the potential use of camera tech-

nology to facilitate these interactions. It would

be difficult to anticipate and differentiate the

mentor experiences for the entire sample of

teachers in the pilot, but at the very least, there

needed to be a concerted effort from mentors to

connect new teachers to the various District

resources (e.g., people, departments, programs)

available to help guide their early career years.

Similar to the school innovation pilot, the pre-

tenure support pilot made little headway due to

the challenges in securing cameras.

We learned important lessons from the spring

2011 Reflective Practice Pilot. The successes

and challenges from the individual pilots

provided great insight for our broader approach

to individualizing support for teachers. A one-

size-fits-all model is not appropriate for a district

of 7,000 teachers as evidenced by the various

opportunities for reflection made available to

teachers. Moreover, most of the 800 teachers

who participated responded favorably to the

variety of opportunities made available through

the Reflective Practice Pilot. Likewise, we

learned that teachers are most interested in

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

47

reflective practice that allows them to engage

others in conversation about their teaching.

As stated, we struggled with several aspects of

reflective practice implementation, not the least

of which was the acquisition and deployment of

cameras. Many schools already had the camera

equipment, but the ordering of new cameras was

delayed and stalled the pilots that relied on the

use of cameras. The coordination of efforts

across multiple departments and organizations

that already provide some type of support

teachers was also a challenge.

Many District departments and partners have

programs and services that touch pre-tenure

teachers. For example, new teachers who are

affiliated with our partner programs (e.g., Teach

for America, Memphis Teacher Residency, and

Memphis Teaching Fellows) receive intensive

support as a part of their commitment to their

respective programs. It behooves us to under-

stand better how these and other strategies could

benefit teachers in a way that is not duplicative

and has the greatest reach across the district.

The information collected through each pilot

was very instructive in our efforts to build a

program of support that is responsive to the

collective and individual needs of all teachers.

Initially the goal was to identify the single most

impactful strategy for the District; however, it

was equally important to identify the factors that

would facilitate and impede the development of

stated program.

Create new and differentiated career paths

The Reflective Practice Pilot presented oppor-

tunities to see what differentiated roles and

responsibilities for teachers might look like in

the coming years. In the co-investigation and

video coaching strategies, the peer-coaching and

support responsibilities of the more experienced

teachers most resemble possible roles and

responsibilities of lead, professional, or master

teachers. Granted, the specific criteria for the

differentiated career paths are yet to be

determined, but feedback and outcomes from

these pilots will inform future design and

implementation of this particular initiative. We

have adjusted the timeline for piloting the

differentiated career paths to coincide with full

implementation of the TEM (2011–2012). The

Coordinator of Teacher Career Management,

Mike Neal, will oversee this dimension of the

work.

Implement a new base compensation

structure

― . . . if in a year from now, the dialogue,

conversation, and support for providing

teachers a livable wage based on effec-

tiveness would be an acceptable reality.”

Irving Hamer

When asked what successes he would like to see

as a consequence of the teacher effectiveness

reform, Deputy Superintendent Hamer respon-

ded with the foreshadowing of the most ground-

breaking aspect of our body of work, the new

base compensation structure. It is no secret that

teachers are underpaid and underappreciated

across the nation. Deputy Superintendent Hamer

adds, ―The current system diminishes the craft.

We are building a system that is responsive to

the [teaching] profession.‖ We also believe that

we need a contemporary compensation system

to recruit and retain good teachers.

The new base compensation structure was orig-

inally scheduled to follow the development of

the new evaluation system and roll-out during

the 2013–2014 school year. Because Tennessee

law now requires every teacher to be evaluated

every school year, the development of our new

evaluation system (i.e., Teacher Effectiveness

Measure or TEM) was accelerated to be aligned

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

48

with the law. Moreover, the timelines for the

implementation of strategic initiatives driven by

the TEM reflect earlier launch dates. While the

work of building a new compensation structure

is listed here as a milestone for the larger

strategy of better supporting, utilizing, and

compensating teachers, it is by no means

ancillary to the MCS model of teacher effec-

tiveness reform. According to Deputy Super-

intendent Hamer, a new base compensation

structure is a critical strategy for the teacher

effectiveness reform. His sentiment is simply:

―This is the largest body of work that we have to

do; this is the work! This is where the heavy lift

has to take place. We can do everything else, but

changing the way we compensate teachers is

cutting-edge work and is exactly the human

capital management that is TEI.‖

It is not uncommon for school districts to layer

on financial incentives to an existing salary, but

it is totally unprecedented to challenge a status-

quo system for compensating teachers that has

been in place for nearly a century. We acknowl-

edge the research that refutes a positive impact

of incentive pay on performance and develop-

ment of employees. We are not looking simply

to enhance our current practice of paying

teachers extra money here and there with little

consequence for their performance; we do not

want to compensate ineffectiveness. Rather, we

intend to build a base compensation system that

aligns to differentiated career paths for teachers

and rewards teachers for effectiveness. At this

juncture, we have the opportunity to execute a

complete overhaul to the MCS compensation

structure knowing that it will demand a philo-

sophical, conceptual, and cultural shift in the

way we think about the teaching profession.

Collaborative work plans are in development

with several expert compensation teams. We

have enlisted the help of Dr. Matt Springer, Rick

Lantz, and Service Master. The burgeoning

relationships with our expert teams are a product

of conversations and commitments through the

TEI Advisory Board, a body of community

representatives from business, philanthropic, and

educational organizations that support the

teacher effectiveness reform of MCS. More

specifically, connections with Service Master

and Rick Lantz were made through the Advisory

Board seats held by Memphis Tomorrow and

International Paper, respectively45

. The District

has issued an RFP to identify a consulting firm

who will also help to design the new

compensation structure. With industry leaders

and experts at the table and ready to work, the

progress of this initiative has surpassed initial

expectations.

In early meetings, partner teams and District

personnel brainstormed ideas for building the

new system in a way that challenges the status

quo and changes public policy at the local and

state levels. The current practices for compen-

sation and exchanging information for ideas for

the work ahead were a good starting point for

discussion and big-picture ideas. For example,

the residual impact of the Teacher Career Ladder

Program46

that was in its prime during the 1990s

may be a good reference for forthcoming com-

pensation plans. In the Career Ladder Program,

teachers were compensated based on certifi-

45

Blair Taylor, President of Memphis Tomorrow, and

Kim Wirth, Executive Director for International Paper

Company are members of the TEI Advisory Board. A

complete listing of the TEI Advisory Board members

is available at

http://www.mcsk12.net/tei/board.asp.

46 The Teacher Career Ladder Program is described in

detail in The Teacher Effectiveness Initiative Case

Study 2010: Strategy No.3: Better Support, Utilize,

and Compensate Teachers available at

www.mcsk12.net/tei.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

49

cation and years of teaching experience within

five levels of career advancement. There are still

MCS teachers whose salaries are driven by the

Career Ladder Program. It is important that we

engage these teachers to help understand the

circumstances that led to the demise of the

Career Ladder Program as well as navigate the

challenges that may emerge with a new system.

We plan to institute the new compensation with

the August 2012 class of new teachers coming to

the district.

Strategically place the best teachers where

they are needed most

Increasingly, we are seeing the need to staff

strategically the schools that are in need of more

high-performing teachers. Coleman Elementary

school has been approved as a model for

strategic staffing methods in 2011–2012. Prior to

the end of the 2010–2011 school year, the

principal of Coleman Elementary approached

District leaders in a plea for her school. She

mentioned that she had seen the student growth

data for her school and noticed that she had only

a handful of high-performing teachers (i.e.,

levels four and five according to value-added

measures). Specifically, there were a couple of

teachers who fell into levels three and four, but

none were classified as level five. The rest of the

teachers were classified as level one. This

situation naturally occurred and has served as

the impetus for the launch of a Strategic Staffing

Subcommittee. Although no concrete decisions

have been made to date, the possibility for

strategic planning and placement of high-

performing teachers in this case is exactly what

we intend to do for schools across the District.

This kind of strategic staffing has implications

for our evaluation and support initiatives. For

example, with the TEM in place, we will be able

to identify additional opportunities for placing

our best teachers where they are needed most.

We are now in the process of identifying a

middle school site to test the strategic staffing

methods.

Cluster “high-potential” teacher recruits in

schools with the most high-need students

The progress for this initiative is described in

Strategy No. 2: Make Better Decisions about

Who Teaches. The STARS team has given pri-

ority to teachers from partner programs that seek

to have clusters of their teachers working in the

same school or at least the same feeder pattern.

We are committed to making sure that the

clustering strategies are successful for partner

programs, because clustering is a unique support

strategy for candidates who are more likely to be

placed in high-priority schools with high

concentrations of high-needs students.

In the coming years, this initiative will be con-

solidated with the placement strategies that

appear in Strategy No. 2: Make Better Decisions

about Who Teaches.

Build a service oriented culture in the

district toward teachers

This is the first year that the milestone to build a

service-oriented culture for teachers in the

District appears in the plans. In a February 2011

in-service survey, teachers responded to the

open-ended question, ―What can MCS do to

better support teachers?‖ Teachers provided

various responses, including improved profess-

sional development and increased peer collab-

oration. The majority of teachers replied that

they would feel more supported if the paperwork

was reduced, and they had more time to teach

(see Exhibit #8). Ms. Jordan is collaborating

with a teacher working group to identify non-

instructional time commitments of teachers and

to make recommendations to streamline their

workloads. Beginning late summer (or early fall)

2011, Ms. Jordan was set to convene teacher

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

50

groups and administrators to prioritize non-

instructional demands based on feedback from

various stakeholder groups. Together, these

groups will determine strategies to ease the non-

instructional time commitment and workloads of

teachers.

Conclusion

In preparation for the upcoming school year, we

are finalizing our work for a new framework for

teaching and learning. We have partnered with

Insight Education Group, the developers of our

new observation rubric, to reshape our

understanding of what it means to measure,

monitor, and manage effective teaching.

Inherent in this new framework is a commitment

to support teachers in ways that are new and

different from the traditional methods.

In the broader landscape of our work, teacher

support refers to an infrastructure that facilitates

the continual learning, differentiated respon-

sibility, and deliberate enhancement of teaching

as a profession. With this, the development and

implementation of a comprehensive program of

support for teachers has to be as dynamic as the

career development of teachers that we envision.

The strategies of better supporting teachers have

improved in major ways due in part to the

launch of the Reflective Practice Pilot.

Collectively, the pilots engaged 800 teachers

across the District. It is not clear whether one

type of reflective practice will be the banner of

support for MCS, nor is there anything that

precludes the District from employing some

version of all of the reflective practice strategies

in the future. We continue to endeavor to supply

teachers with timely, individualized feedback.

We want to be intentional in prescribing support,

particularly for those teacher groups47

requiring

47

Pre-K through 3rd

grade, middle school, and pre-

tenure teachers have been identified as those who

a specialized and differentiated program of

support.

The workings of a new base-compensation sys-

tem and differentiated career paths for teachers

are not fully defined at this time; however,

working groups and strategic partner teams are

identifying best practices and strategies that are

appropriate for the District.

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps

The most salient challenge for this strategy is the

use of video cameras to capture teacher practice.

There is a complicated matrix of issues related

to the use of video cameras that continues to

wage concern in the minds of teachers. For the

purposes of the pilots, there seems to be some

agreement with the teachers‘ union such that

participation in pilots with video cameras is

strictly voluntary.

At beginning of the Reflective Practice pilot,

Monica Jordan launched a camera tour to

increase exposure to the use of camera tech-

nology for professional growth and collaboration

(December 2010–January 2011). The camera

tour was set up so visitors could touch the

cameras and examine their operations. Further,

Ms. Jordan invited the visitors to and share early

thoughts about the use of cameras in classrooms.

She created a catalogue of potential barriers and

exciting ways to use the technology based on the

responses and feedback of teachers who

participated in the camera tour. Many of the

teachers volunteered to participate in reflective

practice pilots as a result of their experiences

during the camera tour.

There are clear District policy implications for

the use of video cameras. Further, the decisions

are particularly vulnerable and in need of intensive,

specialized support programs.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

51

made at this point have set early precedence for

the use of video cameras across the district

going forward. Teachers‘ privacy options were

among the most debated topics with regard to

the new practice and policy of video obser-

vation. Privacy of video content was also a

controversial issue in that teachers were

generally concerned about the punitive use of

video content for high-stakes decision-making,

specifically evaluation. The PDSI office also

drafted a set of protocols for the use of video

cameras. Per these interim protocols, teachers

have complete ownership of their videos,

thereby having complete decision-making

authority to share the content with other col-

leagues or delete the video content at their

discretion. The District needs solid guidance on

how to proceed with the use of video cameras in

academic operations (e.g., observation, profess-

sional development, evaluation). A policy for

video capture and video use is currently under

development.

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

52

Exhibit #7: Spring 2011 Reflective Practice Pilots

Spring 2011 Reflective Practice Pilots

OBJECTIVES

1. Involve 1/2 of all MCS schools

2. Inform plans for 2011-2012 district-wide rollout

3. Transform mindset to focus on continuous improvement

Written Feedback

Provide teachers

in the observation

rubric I study with

written feedback

• Teachers: 610

• Schools: 61

• Feedback givers:

Principals, APs,

hired observers

and content

specialists

Video Coaching

Provide teachers

in the MET sub-

study with access

to real-time and

post observation

coaching, utilizing

camera resources

as needed

• Teachers: 100

• Schools: 14

• Feedback givers:

Teacher-selected

and assigned

coaches

SchoolInnovation

Provide schools

with the

opportunity to

build their own

methods of

reflective practice

• Teachers:

• Schools: 2

• Provided by:

Varies by school

Co-Investigation

Provide teachers

in the observation

rubric II study with

in person problem

solving sessions,

utilizing camera

resources as

needed

• Teachers: 60

• Schools: 10

• Feedback givers:

High-performing

peers and content

specialists using

video observations

Pre-Tenure Support

Provide pre-tenure

teachers with

quality mentorship

program to help

new teachers

reflect on and

improve their

practice

• Teachers: 140

• Schools: 12

• Provided by:

Mentors in MCS

Teacher Induction

Program

1 2 3 4 5

Str

ate

gy

Fe

ed

ba

ck

Pa

rtic

ipa

nts

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE FOUNDATION

Partnership with Professional Development

Partnership with School Operations

MCS Reflective Practice

Better Support, Utilize, and Compensate Teachers

53

Exhibit #8: 2011 Survey Results on Teacher Support

2011 Survey Results on Teacher Support

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Open-Ended Reponses: What can MCS do to better support teachers?

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

54

Strategy No. 4: Improve the Surrounding

Context to Foster Effective Teaching

Teachers are effective to the extent that they can

teach in settings and under circumstances that

facilitate positive teaching and learning

experiences for themselves and their students.

Principal leadership capacity, school culture and

climate, and technology are central areas of

focus in our efforts to create conditions that

would allow teachers to impart meaningful

educational experiences to their students

consistently.

Context

The school principal is one of the most in-

fluential factors to the progress of the TEI. We

understand now more than ever the importance

of developing strong leaders who buy in,

execute the reform, and have the capacity to

empower their teachers to do the same. We

instituted the Leadership Effectiveness Initiative

(LEI) to increase principal engagement with

respect to the TEI. By design, the leadership

effectiveness work is an analog to the teacher

effectiveness reform in that it seeks to improve

the evaluation, training, and retention of ef-

fective principals.

Strategies to improve school culture and climate

yielded early successes through the implemen-

tation of the Envoy Project. During Year 1, one

of our strategic partners, The Efficacy Institute,48

recruited, trained, and deployed approximately

170 student envoys and 100 teacher envoys in

schools (elementary, middle, and high school)

across the district. The Efficacy team worked

closely with the MCS Division of Student

Support Services to establish school teams and

activities related for the Envoy Project. The

team in Student Support Services has also been

able to identify and link student and school-level

data to the Envoy Project and other school-level

attempts to improve the school culture and

climate.

MCS has several available data sources (e.g.,

PBIS49

, Teacher Working Conditions, Tripod

and Safety) that inform our understanding of

school climate and culture. In some cases, these

data have had little impact on decisions made to

address the concerns of different stakeholder

groups. Disparities in the approach to data

collection (e.g., prevention vs. intervention),

reporting requirements (e.g., types of incidents),

and interpretation or use lead to a distorted view

of what the context for teaching and learning is

in all of the schools. There is a need to cross-

reference all available data to generate school-

and district-level reports and to develop appro-

priate plans of improvement.

We have not yet established an integrated tech-

nology platform that facilitates timely and accu-

rate data storage, retrieval, and reporting. Last

year, the District started down the path to an

integrated technology system with an interim

48

The Efficacy Institute www.efficacy.org.

49 Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support

www.pbis.org.

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

55

technology solution for data reporting and an

electronic evaluation system. The interim tech-

nology solution was made available to report on

data requests and outputs for the October 2010

stock-take with the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation, but it is not enough to maintain

ongoing analyses and reporting requirements.

The strategic initiatives from Year 1 remain the

same, but the focus has shifted in some areas.

Accordingly, this case study presents the plan-

ning and progress that have taken place to date.

The Year-2 goals for improving the context for

teaching and learning are as follows:

Improve principal leadership capacity

Improve school culture to create con-

ditions that foster effective teaching and

learning

Develop a new technology platform that

will support data-driven decisions

Implementation & Findings

Principal Leadership Capacity

The scope of leadership effectiveness centers on

cultivating strong leadership in schools across

the District. Moreover, our efforts and expe-

riences to date reinforce the need for more buy-

in and execution on the part of our school-level

leaders. In the past three years, there have been

100 changes in school leadership. Therefore, it is

imperative that we maintain a strong, consistent

pipeline for high potential principals to take

leadership in our schools.

Since 2009, the Urban Education Center (UEC)

has served as the primary preparatory programs

and pipeline for school leadership in MCS. The

UEC continues to host annual training and

development opportunities for school leaders,

namely the Forum for Innovative Leadership,

Executive Leadership Program, and Summer

Institutes. In particular, the Forum for

Innovative Leadership has operated as the

district-wide principals‘ annual summer training

experience.

The LEI is intended to work as the analog to the

TEI and operate as a comprehensive structure of

support and development for school and District

leadership. However, this initiative has not yet

reached a level of implementation comparable to

that of the TEI. Recently, New Leaders for New

Schools (NLNS)50

has been officially

commissioned to manage the LEI body of work

and move it forward toward promoting school

leadership effectiveness.

In order for us to reach our goal of district-wide

effectiveness, we need principals to be instruc-

tional leaders, not just building managers.

District leaders have ascertained that 60% –70%

of principals‘ time was dedicated to operational

issues (e.g., cafeteria duty, building mainten-

ance) not instruction. District leaders are trying

to determine how reduce to the operational

responsibilities of principals and empower them

to maintain laser-like focus on instruction and

effectiveness.

To facilitate principals‘ refocus on instruction in

their buildings, we intend to develop and im-

plement training tools to support principals in

delivering more robust evaluations, providing

consistent feedback, and referring teachers to

appropriate resources for support and develop-

ment. Specifically, we have begun to develop a

comprehensive principal syllabus with an

emphasis on effectiveness for their monthly

training sessions.

50

New Leaders for New Schools www.nlns.org.

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

56

Improve school culture and climate

The student-centered approach to creating posi-

tive school cultures, the Envoy Project, con-

tinues to be a distinguishing factor in our work

to improve the context for teaching and learning

in school buildings. In November 2010, nearly

600 student envoys from all grade levels

attended a fall conference to prepare them to be

change agents in their schools. To date, there are

approximately 800 student envoys in schools

throughout the district and 150 teacher envoys

trained in the efficacy model. Student envoys

were trained to take responsibility for their own

achievement and school environment and to

demonstrate those values throughout the school

day.

The first cohort of middle school student envoys

who were trained during the summer 2010

Leadership Camp has already begun to

demonstrate belief in and commitment to

efficacy. Student envoys delivered efficacy

messages to members of the student body during

morning announcements, displayed promotions

in the form of posters and banners around the

school building, and gave a ―State-of-the-

School‖ address to inform students about the

conditions in their school. Representatives from

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation had the

opportunity to visit Hamilton Middle School to

sit in on an efficacy presentation by their student

envoys. Colleen Oliver, our former program

officer with the Foundation, had this to say

about her experience at the school: ―The

students were very articulate, insightful and wise

about what needs to occur to change the culture

of their school. They articulated how hard it can

be to serve as a leader around ‗doing the right

thing‘ but it was impressive that they were

willing to serve in this role. They were

genuinely proud that the school year is off to a

good start with no fights, etc. I was impressed

with the new principal. He has only been there a

month but it was clear that he is committed to

changing the culture, and I think he's already put

in place some good things; the envoy teachers

were also very committed to this work.‖

Additional recruitment and training oppor-

tunities for student and teacher envoys were

expanded with a MCS Envoy Youth Conference

in March 2011, and the 2011 Summer Leader-

ship Camp, a five-day experience for incoming

envoys. The Efficacy Institute and MCS Student

Support Services are working to bring 50 new

schools on board for the 2011–2012 school year.

Student envoys have earned recognition and

support across the District and most recently on

a national level.

One of the Envoy Project‘s most notable laurels

for this year came in the form of an invitation

from Alberto Retana, the former Director of

Community Outreach for the US Department of

Education, to have MCS student envoys attend

the United States Department of Education‘s

(USDOE) Voices in Action, National Youth

Summit in Washington, D.C., to discuss the

state of education across the country. The

invitation came as a result of conversations

between Mr. Retana and student envoys during

his visit to the district-wide ThinkShow!51

in

early November 2010. During the session, which

was a scheduled event as a part of the USDOE

National Youth Listening Tour, students had the

opportunity to share their experiences as envoys

with Mr. Retana and other visitors. The students‘

grasp of efficacy principles and vested interest in

51

ThinkShow! is the MCS district-wide, project-

based, exhibition whereby students demonstrate

learning beyond standardized testing. The highlight

of ThinkShow! is the participation of community

members (~7,000) who visit schools to judge student

work. Additional information is available at

www.thinkshow.org.

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

57

their educational experiences compelled

Director Retana to extend the invitation to attend

the National Youth Summit. Director of School

Services and Training with the Efficacy Insti-

tute, Barbara Logan, shared, ―This is something

they will never forget. We want them to be able

to share this [experience] with their classmates

and friends.‖

MCS had the largest representation at the

conference with 46 students from 26 schools.

During the conference, students heard from

national leaders in politics and education. They

also interacted with other students from across

the nation to talk about their roles in improving

the state of education. I accompanied the student

envoys on their journey to the National Youth

Summit in Washington, D.C., to document their

experiences with other ambassadors for edu-

cation. After having spent the weekend with the

student envoys and witnessing their participation

in the National Youth Summit, it occurred to me

that of all of the stakeholders we seek to inform

and engage in our reform efforts, we have not

necessarily done our due diligence with the

group who are our primary stakeholder group of

interest — our students. During the summit,

students spoke about wanting to have input into

their teachers‘ evaluations, engaging school

district leaders, and making a difference in their

schools. Although the Envoy Project has been

successful as a vehicle to mobilize students to

take responsibility for their education, we have

to be more intentional about our efforts to

empower students and to inform students about

the reform that surrounds them.

In March 2011, the Envoy Project hosted the

first Envoy Spring Conference. Students had the

opportunity to share their work with peers,

teachers, principals, and District leaders. Like-

wise, they took advantage of the opportunity to

speak directly with District leadership. The

students addressed a panel of District leaders

and asked specific questions about the Envoy

Project and their schools. Further, students wel-

comed the leaders‘ openness and advice

throughout the conference.

The Envoy Project continues expansion across

the District. In addition to the recruitment of

more student and teacher envoys, the program

promises to position students for more exposure

and leadership opportunities. One such example

of increased exposure is the result of students‘

experiences with documenting their trip to the

National Youth Summit. Student envoys who

participated in the technology and media classes

are working to create an envoy television show.

The show will feature highlights of the program

(e.g., National Youth Summit) as well as student

presentations of efficacy principles.

There is a wealth of available information to

enlighten decisions about improving the culture

and climate of schools. We have PBIS, Teacher

Working Conditions, Tripod, and Safety data at

our disposal. This year marked the resurgence of

the PBIS program in the District. In conjunct-

tion with the PBIS benchmarking tool, security

data is valuable in understanding school vul-

nerabilities for specific incidents (e.g., fights,

weapons).

The Tripod and Teacher Working Conditions

surveys provide insight into school climate and

culture through the lenses of those in particular

schools. While the Tripod survey allows stu-

dents to provide feedback on aspects of specific

classroom cultures, the Teacher Working Con-

ditions survey allows teachers to provide

feedback on various dimensions of the school

culture and climate. The data from last year‘s

administration of the Teacher Working Con-

ditions survey has already been used to identify

schools within the district that require immediate

attention to issues of school climate, including

limited enforcement of the student code of

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

58

conduct and marginal support from the school

administrator. This year, instead of the Teacher

Working Conditions survey, a school climate

and culture survey, TELL Tennessee52

, was

piloted to ―capture the perceptions of all school-

based licensed educators about learning con-

ditions, through an anonymous process.‖ The

District encouraged all teachers to complete the

online survey so that any data shared with

schools and districts state-wide would also be

representative of MCS. Approximately78% of

MCS teachers completed the survey, and school-

and district-level reports are available at

www.telltennessee.com.

The key to staying proactive in the approach to

creating optimal learning environments is to

develop a system whereby all of the available

data sources are cross-referenced and result in

not only a comprehensive view of school

conditions but also an equally comprehensive

plan to address issues that occur in the school

which might otherwise jeopardize the educa-

tional process. Toward this end, we charged the

Culture and Climate task force with the re-

sponsibility of exploring the data and making

recommendations for system-wide efforts to

create positive learning environments. Going

forward, we intend to equip District leaders and

school principals with the data and resources to

develop and implement school-wide improve-

ment plans.

Develop a new technology platform

Technology is a foundational component of all

teacher effectiveness strategies. We have made

some progress in identifying technology solu-

tions for our most immediate needs, namely

52

Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning

(TELL) Tennessee will be administered spring 2011

and spring 2013. Additional information is available

at www.telltennessee.com.

evaluations and school data analyses. RANDA

Solutions has designed the Online Principal and

Teacher Evaluation System (OPTES) which is

the electronic interface of the current framework

for evaluation. This electronic tool is vital to our

capacity to manage and conduct nearly 30,000

observations district-wide. Although RANDA

Solutions has developed what is needed to

maintain the evaluation tool itself, we are

exploring options for having a platform that

connects the evaluation tool (i.e., TEM) to the

rest of the evaluation process (i.e.,

recommendations for professional development

and support).

Tableau53

is the program of choice for providing

school and District leaders with an array of real-

time data about the schools. Principals will be

able to have the data at their fingertips as they

walk through their school buildings. It is a

valuable tool to help principals and District

leaders to monitor student-, teacher-, and school-

level data. The software also helps facilitate

cross-analytics on various data points that relate

to performance in the building (e.g., attendance,

discipline, proficiency levels). The Tableau

software will be piloted with schools in the

Striving Schools Zone. The goal of pilot is to

equip 55–65 school principals with these tools

during the coming school year.

The electronic vacancy management form that

was developed by the STARS team also

represents progress toward the move toward

more streamlined process management and

implementation through electronic tools. We

intend to expand this utility of this and other

online resources that lead to more timely

interfaces with stakeholders and archive relevant

data for continuous improvement.

53

Tableau www.tableausoftware.com

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

59

We continue to work toward securing a tech-

nology platform that serves all of the functions

needed to manage our comprehensive, human

capital strategy, particularly for forthcoming

development in areas related to staffing,

compensation, and the like. The IT department

completed an audit to identify long-term

technology needs and solutions.

Conclusion

Improving the culture and climate of schools

across the district remains a priority. We have

maintained our position that creating and sus-

taining an environment that promotes effective

teaching and learning cannot be achieved

through a one-dimensional approach. Whereas

this strategy was previously focused on gearing

up the student-centered approach to cultural

shifts in schools, Year 2 involved enhanced ef-

forts to incorporate other factors that contribute

to schools‘ culture and climate.

The Envoy Project is gaining momentum and

has poised our students to take ownership and

leadership in their educational experiences. The

Efficacy Institute has been charged with iden-

tifying key academic, social, and emotional

variables that reflect the program‘s impact on

students, teachers, and schools. In like manner,

we have to be more intentional about using

school-level data to drive decision making and

coordinate efforts to improve the climate and

culture for schools across the District. Although

we continue to rely on separate technology

solutions for different aspects of the work, we

have identified the issues that require urgent

attention and have begun the search for a fully

integrated ERP system. To date, an RFP has

been issued but not filled for a project manage-

ment solution to precede the implementation of

the long-term ERP solution.

Ongoing Issues and Next Steps

There continue to be challenges in implement-

tation of the three-pronged approach to improv-

ing the surrounding context to foster effective

teaching. Among the most prevalent challenges

related to this strategy are Stakeholder buy-in

and internal capacity. Students are effective

change agents in their schools to the extent that

the culture in which they find themselves is

conducive to change. The key is to ensure that

all stakeholders understand that efficacy is a

belief system rather than a matter of compliance.

Recruitment and training of many students and

teachers for the Envoy Project continue to be

quite successful; however, it has been difficult to

foster the same level of success in getting

teachers and principals to buy in to the Efficacy

mindset and embrace it for their schools.

Without a network of educators and leaders to

support high expectations of achievement in the

schools, the students remain at a disadvantage

with respect to their own academic outcomes.

The following is an account shared by a parent

who is concerned about an efficacy dilemma

faced by her son. Her son, a student envoy, was

in a class with a teacher who did not share his

efficacy mindset:

―My son wanted to exercise the efficacy

principles in one of his classes. He took

a Geometry test and wanted to retake the

test to make a better grade. The

teacher‘s policy was that you could

retake the test only if you failed. He

didn‘t fail the test [with an F], but he

failed by his standards. He asked her

over and over again if he could take the

test again, but she wouldn‘t let him

because he didn‘t fail. He said, ‗So

because I didn‘t fail, I don‘t have the

opportunity to do better?‘ The teacher

stuck to her policy.‖

Improve the Surrounding Context to Forster Effective Teaching

60

This student wanted to try again and do better

because he had high expectations for his own

achievement. The question really is: how do we

support a ―demand‖ student who is in a class-

room or school building that does not ascribe to

the efficacy model?

Our internal capacity to manage the culture and

climate work has been met with some chal-

lenges. For instance, Mr. James Bacchus, former

MCS Chief of Student Support Service, led the

school culture and climate body of work but

took a position outside of the school district. Mr.

Wayne Booker (former Academic Coordinator

for the Southeast Regional Office) took over that

position in July 2011 after an unsettled period of

interim leader-ship. He works closely with

Marqui Fifer of the Department of Teacher

Talent and Effectiveness, who chairs the Culture

and Climate Task Force.

Other Strategies Related to Success of TEI

61

Other Strategies Related to the Success of TEI

Context

For Memphis City Schools (MCS), policy

reform has been the most appropriate means of

ensuring the sustainability of reform efforts.

Early on, the District sought to establish

protocols and procedures that would keep the

reform efforts on track despite changes in

district leadership, personnel, and priorities. One

such example is the policy work that began in

2008 with the ―Cradle to Career‖ reform agenda,

the District‘s approach to impacting the lives of

youth at critical junctures in their education and

development. The TEI is one dimension of the

―Cradle to Career‖ reform agenda. Shortly after

Superintendent Cash‘s arrival to Memphis, he

and the MCS Board of Commissioners worked

together to align the ―Cradle to Career‖ body of

work with appropriate academic, personnel, and

operational policies. The implementation of

reform strategies as well as the transformation of

district policies to institutionalize reform

preceded much of the policy and legislative

changes at the State level.

In 2010, the Tennessee General Assembly

enacted the Tennessee First to the Top Act that

requires annual teacher and principal evaluations

based, in part, on student growth data and

classroom observations. The legislation also

requires that the results from evaluations be used

in employment decisions including, but not

necessarily limited to, promotion, retention,

termination, compensation, and attainment of

tenure status. Local districts are also given the

autonomy to develop and gain state approval to

use a compensation system different from the

state. In support of the reform, MCS is engaged

in policy and legislative activities that support

the goal of having an effective teacher in every

classroom, every day.

Since inception, the teacher effectiveness reform

has garnered the support of a wide range of

community stakeholders. In fact, MCS formed a

TEI Advisory Board, comprised of local

business, philanthropic, and higher education

organizations, to guide the District‘s work and to

serve as a collective body of advocates for the

sustainability of the work. Additionally, in Year

One, we successfully established relationships

with prominent community organizations to

begin the work of galvanizing support for

ongoing reform.

Historically, MCS has struggled with maintain-

ing effective and ongoing communication

strategies with various internal and external

stakeholders. Despite the District‘s commitment

to reform and the benefit thereof, negative

perceptions about the work of the school district

outweigh the positive stories of achievement and

triumph of the many MCS principals, teachers,

and students. Moreover, MCS personnel admit

that they have ―reform or initiative fatigue‖ and

believe the TEI is another fleeting reform that

will subside when leadership changes or new

reform ideas occur. Based on recent polls in the

Memphis community, we are faced with the

formidable tasks of building trust among

Other Strategies Related to Success of TEI

62

stakeholders, dispelling myths around the TEI

strategies, and building widespread support to

move our reform agenda forward.

Implementation & Findings

Influence and track policies to support TEI

Policy development at the district, state, and

federal levels is critical to entering into and

sustaining education reform. According to

Natalie McKinney, the Director of Policy and

Legislative Services, ―Policy work involves a

continuous process of assessing the effectiveness

and sustainability of policies created, as an

accountability measure, to ensure that the

district‘s goals are being appropriately

addressed. This necessarily includes evaluating

district policies in terms of the changing and

evolving district goals and expectations; the

ever-changing district parameters; new and

relevant research; changes in district capacity;

and the volatility of stakeholder input and

impact.‖ Ms. McKinney is referring to the

reoccurring themes considered when developing

or revising policy in the interest of reform.

To date, MCS has developed or revised the

following policies to support its efforts around

effective teaching: 1) Teacher Effectiveness; 2)

Teacher Effect Data; 3) Professional Develop-

ment; and 4) Effective School Leadership. The

development of policies related to teacher

evaluation, teacher tenure, and video capture are

still underway and possible revisions are

proposed in the areas of teacher effect data,

teacher support, and teacher compensation. State

legislative changes have made it possible for

district policy change. The discussion here will

focus on the relationship of State policy to MCS

policy in the aforementioned areas of

implementation.

The Tennessee First to the Top Act requires

annual evaluation of all teachers. Further, the

legislation enabled school districts to make

employment decisions, such as promotion,

retention, termination, compensation, and

tenure, based on teacher evaluation and student

achievement data. In terms of the observation

component of teacher evaluation, MCS is

exploring the use of video cameras to facilitate

evaluations as well as to support teachers. MCS‘

teacher evaluation policy was developed to

establish protocols around the use of TVAAS

data for evaluations. Likewise, revisions to the

evaluation policy must now incorporate the

appropriate use of video technology.

In 2011, a new tenure law was passed to extend

the probationary period for teachers to receive

tenure from three years to five years. The law

also makes a probationary teacher‘s tenure-

eligible status contingent upon receipt of an

overall performance effectiveness rating of

―above‖ or ―significantly above‖ expectations on

teacher evaluations. Accordingly, MCS policy

must include the process for receiving tenure

and what, if any, additional criteria above and

beyond the evaluation might be used to aware

tenure.

Although the professional development policy

went into effect about a year ago, there is a need

to address other meaningful professional

experiences in a policy for teacher support. For

example, the District is working to create a peer-

assistance and review (PAR) program. The

goals, roles, and responsibilities associated with

the implementation of this type of teacher

support opportunity need to be developed in

alignment with a teacher support policy. This is

particularly important as the implementation of a

PAR program also has implications for

evaluation and possibly tenure attainment.

Other Strategies Related to Success of TEI

63

The current law allows school districts to

develop alternative compensation systems. MCS

is beginning the work of developing a new base

compensation schedule for teachers. We have to

be thoughtful in the way that we design the

Currently, the Tennessee House and the

Tennessee Senate have proposed different

revisions to the Education Professional Act

regarding collective bargaining. Whereas the

Senate version completely eliminates collective

bargaining, the House redefines collective

bargaining. Once both sides reach a

compromise, MCS will need to develop policies

for areas restricted from collective bargaining,

including but not limited to working conditions,

transfer, differentiated pay plans and

compensation, layoffs, and seniority.

Develop communications strategy around

TEI

Last year, MCS issued an RFP to identify

partners who could help with developing and

implementing a strategic communications plan

around the TEI. Although the District has

always had the Department of Communications

to handle any communications, media relations

and marketing for all of MCS, it was important

to identify partners to help focus specifically on

the communications surrounding the teacher

effectiveness reform. After review, three

communications firms were chosen to move the

strategic communications of the TEI forward —

Reingold (Washington, D.C.), Red Deluxe

(Memphis, TN), and Trust Marketing &

Communications (Memphis, TN). Despite the

new partnership matrix, the communications

work was slow to start and gain traction.

Initially, the public fundraising campaign was

expected to follow the tremendous success of the

private fundraising campaign that yielded nearly

$20 million in a matter of months. However, the

public fundraising campaign was delayed

because it would coincide with the political

debate and uncertainty around the surrender of

the MCS charter. After several months, Diane

Terrell, a board member for the MCS

Foundation, agreed to work as a consultant for

TEI strategic communications. Ms. Terrell is

leading the work around communication

strategies to support the MCS Foundations‘

public fundraising campaign.

With the consolidation of schools imminent,

MCS acknowledged the opportunity to use the

public campaign as a vehicle to solidify and

signal the entire community‘s commitment to

teacher effectiveness reform. Accordingly, the ―I

Teach. I Am‖ was designed to be a teacher-

focused strategy to increase engagement of all

stakeholders. Ms. Terrell contends that the ―I

Teach. I Am‖ campaign ―humanizes and

personalizes the reforms that are underway in

Memphis City Schools.‖ This communications

strategy is multifaceted with emphasis in four

particular areas: 1) in-school recognition, 2)

public space promotion, 3) grassroots

engagement, and 4) social and digital media

connection.

The major touch points for teachers and the ―I

Teach. I Am‖ campaign manifest through the in-

school recognition component of the campaign.

Each month, school-level personnel will

nominate teachers to be the TEM Professional

Teacher Award winner. The monthly

recognition events will be based on teacher

performance data and culminate into the TEM

Prestige Awards ceremony (formerly the

Prestige Awards).

Teachers are being featured in public spaces,

including print ads, movie theater PSAs, buses,

Other Strategies Related to Success of TEI

64

bus transits, billboards, and the new website54

.

There is power in seeing and viewing a public

recognition of the impact of teachers on our

students and our community. This campaign

allows teachers to share their stories with the

community. It is one thing to have teachers

proud to teach in Memphis, but it is equally

noteworthy to have a community join our efforts

to uplift the profession of teaching. The ―I

Teach. I Am‖ public campaign launched at the

second annual Practitioners‘ Summit in August

2011. The campaign collateral included life-

sized posters that featured teachers from schools

across the district as well as a backdrop of all

MCS teachers‘ names in print. Likewise, videos

of teachers speaking about their commitment to

educating children were played on the wide

screens during the opening sessions each day of

the conference. Teachers were excited to see

their names and pictures of themselves and their

colleagues sharing their teaching philosophy and

making public commitments to the children of

Memphis.

The grassroots engagement portion of the

campaign is intended to mobilize stakeholders,

particularly the business community, to donate

their time or money to the success of our

schools. The first initiative derived from

coordinated efforts to bolster the Adopt-a-

School program and improve school culture and

climate. The ―Touch a Teacher Lounge‖ is

gaining momentum as schools work with their

adopters to remodel teachers‘ lounges.

The social and digital media component of the

campaign is meant to be the intersection of the

in-school recognition, public space promotion,

and grassroots engagement. In addition to the ―I

Teach. I Am‖ website, www.mcstei.com was

also created to raise public awareness of what is

54

I Teach. I Am (www.iteachiam.com)

happening in MCS and to promote continuous

engagement. For examples, school district

personnel and partners blog about educational

issues, thereby creating a forum for transparent

and relevant conversations about reform issues.

Teachers‘ stories and elements of the public

campaign all land on the website as well. The

goal is to have the public engaged in a

meaningful way on a regular basis. For the

coming year, the ―I Teach. I Am‖ campaign

promises to represent our framework for

communication and engagement. The current

strategies will be expanded to touch more

stakeholders and increase our capacity to foster

support for reform.

Build community advocacy around TEI

To date, we have taken great pride in the

community‘s demonstration of support for the

District‘s reform efforts. The TEI Advisory

Board continues to serve as the collective

representation of community support for the

work.

Stand for Children is one of our community

partners who has been instrumental in building a

groundswell of support for ongoing reform

among constituents in the city of Memphis.

Stand for Children is a national organization

whose work is to build community advocacy for

public education. The work of Stand for

Children across the nation focuses primarily on

building capacity for parents and teachers to

become advocates and change agents in the

community through education and training,

public policy, and endorsement of elected

officials. The Memphis Chapter of Stand for

Children has organized several opportunities to

educate and engage others in public education.

They are spearheading efforts to establish a

strong advocacy base through team building, the

TEI community education coalition, and

campaigns around local education issues. For

Other Strategies Related to Success of TEI

65

example, Stand for Children has launched the

parent leadership training program to increase

parents‘ knowledge of issues related to teacher

effectiveness and school performance.

Our partnerships with other community

organizations also position us for longevity in

reform. For instance, the United Way of the

Mid-South is working with a consortium of

community organizations to develop

opportunities for the District and community

partners to meet and share information more

regularly. In June 2011, United Way convened

the first coalition meeting for not-for-profit

faith-based organizations to provide information

about the teacher effectiveness work, including

progress to date. Stand for Children, the Mem-

phis Urban League, and United Way shared on

community advocacy and discussed how to get

involved in the work. Over 60 people attended,

and of those, 54 signed a pledge to support

teacher effectiveness and become a member of

the coalition.

In like manner, Communities for Teaching

Excellence, a national organization for creating

advocacy on teacher effectiveness, has recently

partnered with the MCS. The work of the

Communities for Teaching Excellence is

emerging and promising as we look to our

constituents to carry the teacher effectiveness

reform. In upcoming months, Communities for

Teaching Excellence will be polling parents and

other stakeholders to establish a baseline on

beliefs about teacher effectiveness.

Conclusion

Our work has been successful to date because of

the strides made in the areas of policy, strategic

communications, and community advocacy. The

strategies described here are labeled as ―other

strategies related to the success of TEI‖;

however, that categorization is not meant to

imply that the work that happens in those areas

is arbitrary. In fact, the four TEI strategies are of

no consequence if we cannot build policy to

sustain them; communicate accurate and

appropriate messages around the work; or

establish a strong community advocacy base.

Ongoing Issues & Next Steps

In many cases, we are developing policy and

procedures in areas where no prior work has

been done. Our challenge has been to establish

new policy where there is little to no evidence of

what is best practice in certain areas of reform.

We are faced with the dilemma of creating

policy and regulations that are speculative

versus creating policy and regulations that are

driven by the data experiences that derive from

early implementation.

Despite obvious progress, we still have a lot of

work to do in terms of strategic communications

for the TEI. We are optimistic about the promise

of the public campaign and other opportunities

for us to deliver clear messages about the

purpose and intended outcomes of our efforts as

well as build a consistent following for the

teacher effectiveness reform.

Enablers of Implementation

66

Enablers of Implementation

Organizational Capacity

With the exit of the Parthenon Group55

in

December 2010, the development of internal

organizational capacity was imperative in order

to sustain the momentum they initiated during

the first year. Increased capacity for imple-

mentation came about, due, in part, to more

personnel hired this year. Staffing additions

across the board resulted in clear work stream

ownership and accountability for implement-

tation.

The DTTE hired a Project Manager to replace

the Parthenon Group, and the TEM office hired

two research analysts to focus on developments

of the stakeholder perceptions and teacher

content knowledge components of the measure.

Staff was hired to spearhead the changes to the

evaluation process and corresponding teacher

support strategies.

Task forces were formed to increase internal

collaborative efforts for key strategies. The Task

Force management structure afforded these

offices opportunities to work together on cross-

55

The Parthenon Group was a project management

consultant team who supported work for the TEI

from November 2009 through December 2010.

functional initiatives. Much of the staffing

success can be attributed to the decisions and

recommendations that surfaced in Staffing Task

Force meetings.

Strategic Partnerships

The partnerships that we have cultivated in the

name of teacher effectiveness have proven

integral to the progress of implementation. The

product of our partnerships with MEA and

STARS is nothing less than groundbreaking.

More specifically, the significant progress made

for earlier teacher recruitment and hiring

timelines to improve the quality of the external

candidate pool and increase flexibility for

placing high-potential teachers in high-need

schools was facilitated by the partnership

between STARS and MEA.

Our partners have a vested interest in assisting

us with transforming our schools and have made

their own adjustments to improve their interface

with our internal offices and protocols. STARS

increased its internal capacity by adding per-

sonnel to improve local management and com-

munications. They hired a Director of Staffing to

work directly with the SSZ staffing as well as

persons to improve customer relations and

feedback to stakeholders through immediate

follow-up. Likewise, the Efficacy Institute

brought on liaisons to work directly with the

schools and program managers for the Envoy

Project.

Teacher Engagement

We garnered increased traction with teachers

and administrators in the field as a result of our

deliberate efforts to interact with these stake-

holders on an ongoing basis. Through the TEI

working groups, observation rubric field tests,

Enablers of Implementation

67

TEI Ambassadors, and TEI Institutes56

, we were

able to connect teachers, assistant principals,

principals, and other district-level personnel

directly to teacher effectiveness work. The

purpose of the TEI Ambassadors program is to

develop a cadre of individuals who are well-

versed in the District‘s reform work and who

have the capacity to share information with their

colleagues. TEI Ambassadors are one way we

have leveraged teacher voice to drive the reform

agenda. The program was designed to convene

teachers for monthly training sessions to prepare

to share TEI-related information with colleagues

during school faculty meetings and professional

learning communities. Participation in the TEI

Ambassador program was voluntary. Teachers

were encouraged to volunteer to participate in

the TEI Ambassador program, and principals

were also encouraged to nominate teachers from

their buildings to serve in this capacity. Lachell

Boyd, the TEI Liaison for the Department of

Teacher Talent and Effectiveness, leads the TEI

Ambassador program.

56

TEI Ambassadors are teacher-representatives who

are charged with sharing information about reform

in their school buildings.

Barriers to Implementation

68

Barriers to Implementation

Systemic barriers to implementation challenged

many of the outcomes of the teacher effec-

tiveness reform agenda. Despite incremental

progress in some areas described here, execution

against the project milestones continues to be

met with some difficulty. It is important to note

that the barriers listed here are not new

challenges that surfaced with the launch of the

teacher effectiveness work. Rather, they repre-

sent a long history of tradition and consequences

related to operational practice, organizational

development, and volatile bureaucracy.

Data Quality, Access, and Use

By and large, one of the fundamental challenges

for the ongoing teacher effectiveness reform is

the limited access to and dubious quality of the

data that are used to drive decision-making and

continuous improvement of the reform efforts.

In several cases, we were limited in our capacity

to take action because elements of the data were

incomplete, inaccurate, or inappropriate for ad-

dressing the most salient issues. This particular

challenge emerged across strategies, especially

when discussing topics of value-added data,

human resource data (e.g., retirement, resig-

nation, evaluation, and tenure), and culture and

climate data. We also found it difficult to do

cross-analytics with separate databases in the

absence of one repository of teacher, school, and

district-level information. Technology such as

the electronic evaluation tool and Tableau are

promising tools for moving us toward a time

when data quality, access, and use will be

transparent, accurate, and available for driving

decision-making.

Organizational Capacity

It has been difficult to gauge internal support for

the teacher effectiveness reform in terms of

system-wide collaboration. The two major divi-

sions of the District — Academic Operations,

Technology, and Innovation (AOTI) and

Business Operations, Logistics, and Technology

(BOLT) — continue to strive toward seamless

and interdependent operations. Despite the

increasing level of collaboration between the

academic and business units on the execution of

district-wide reform, there are still gaps in the

transactions and follow-through that are needed

to meet major milestones. For example, some

departments express some resistance to the

reform because it means that their work has to

be done in a way that it never has been done

before. Similarly, the resistance is also symp-

tomatic of the teacher effectiveness work being

labeled as an ―academic initiative‖ instead of

MCS‘ new platform for educating and serving

the students of Memphis.

We continue to uncover areas where the dupli-

cation of efforts is a specific threat to imple-

mentation. For every new strategy that is under

development to increase student achievement,

there are two, three, or four existing strategies

that already address the issue. We acknowledge

the need to take an honest inventory of what we

currently have operating in the District and

Barriers to Implementation

69

identify ways to eliminate and/or consolidate

efforts wherever possible.

This year sparked innovation at its best in terms

of reform strategies, but for these areas where

prior experience is sparse (if available at all),

planning and execution has been particularly

challenging. For most of the strategic initiatives,

including the use of video cameras, electronic

evaluations, and reflective practice, there are no

existing statutes, policies, or practices that have

been established and taken to scale in the way

that we have started to do. Our efforts to make

moves in unchartered waters have shown us the

best and worst of ourselves. This work has

allowed us to stretch our thinking and generate

creativity, yet the path not taken is difficult to

pave, especially for an organization that has

undergone massive change in one year‘s time.

The tension between making haste to address

immediate concerns or current opportunities and

managing resistance to change is ever-present.

Political Context

To say that the reform agenda is surrounded by a

volatile political context is an understatement.

Perhaps the most pervasive challenge this year

was the issue of an imminent school system

consolidation between Memphis City Schools

and Shelby County Schools. In December 2010,

the Memphis City Schools‘ Board of Commis-

sioners voted to surrender the charter for the

school district in response to the decision of the

Shelby County School Board to seek special

school district status57

. In March 2011, a

referendum vote affirmed the Board‘s decision

to surrender the charter and transition to a

57

In 2010, the Shelby County Schools Board of

Education sought legislation to become a special

school district. The legislation would enable the

Board to freeze boundaries and levy property taxes

for schools.

consolidated school system. While the details

and controversies of this issue are beyond the

scope of this discussion, the looming concerns

and questions that surround the future of this

work warrant some attention. It is difficult to

reconcile the unprecedented positive impact that

Memphis City Schools‘ TEI has had on teacher

effectiveness reform at local, State, and Federal

levels against the threat of being absorbed into a

system that has expressed little interest in

teacher effectiveness reform, at least in terms of

the TEI. For months, the media unleashed an

unrelenting barrage of headlines, and litigious

battles pose a threat to the morale and focus of

those directly and indirectly involved in trans-

forming the city schools. The Board of Com-

missioners voted to extend Superintendent

Cash‘s contract until August 2013, thereby

reducing the threat of changes to the ad-

ministration.

In the midst of the political throws, the Bill &

Melinda Gates Foundation reaffirmed commit-

ment to our teacher effectiveness agenda and the

children of Memphis City Schools. During our

April 2011 Stock Take with the Foundation, we

were lauded on our ability to reach milestones

despite the political distractions that could have

easily thrown our work off course.

Other changes in the Legislature made this a

year of uncertainty and anxiety around aspects

of the reform agenda. Specifically, changes to

the tenure laws have overshadowed the tone of

support and continuous professional growth that

is embedded in our reform efforts. All of these

issues could potentially be a huge distraction to

internal and external stakeholders who have a

vested interest in the reform work. As we keep

focus on the work, our priority is to keep our

stakeholders‘ attention on the reform and

maintain support for the school system and the

children of Memphis.

70

References

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Preliminary findings from the

Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Available at

http://metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of

effective teaching. Available at www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/met-framing-

paper.pdf.

Hamer, I. (2011, April 28). Memphis schools make quick gains [Letter to the editor]. The Tennessean.

Retrieved May 3, 2011, from www.tennessean.com.

Memphis City Schools. Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Preliminary Results. From 30K: A

Weekly Briefing from Research, Evaluation, Assessment, and Student Information (REASI), 3

(14). Available at http://www.mcsk12.net/aboutmcs_30K.asp.

Walker, Kristin M. (2010). Case Study 2010: Teacher Effectiveness Initiative. Available at

www.mcsk12.net/tei.

71

Resources

Battelle for Kids

www.battelleforkids.org

Center for Transformative Teacher Training

www.transformativeteachertraining.com

Communities for Teaching Excellence

www.4teachingexcellence.org

Efficacy Institute

www.efficacy.org

I Teach. I Am

www.iteachiam.com

Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project

http://metproject.org

Memphis City Schools‘ Mediasite

http://mediasite.mcsk12.net

Conducting More Rigorous Teacher

Evaluations and Navigating the

Evaluation Process is available at

http://mediasite.mcsk12.net/mediasite

5/Catalog/pages/catalog.aspx?catalogId

=f06e4d93-f18e-49ac-bbe8-

1192588b28b5

Memphis City Schools‘ Policies

www.mcsk12.net/policy/policy.asp

New Leaders for New Schools (NLNS)

www.nlns.org

Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support

(PBIS)

www.pbis.org

RANDA Solutions

http://randasolutions.com

Stand for Children

www.stand.org

TEI Advisory Board

www.mcsk12.net/tei/board.asp

Tennessee Department of Education

http://state.tn.us/

TELL Tennessee

www.telltennessee.com

The New Teacher Project

www.tntp.org

ThinkShow!

www.thinkshow.org

Tripod Survey

www.tripodproject.org/

72

Acknowledgments

There are so many colleagues, community partners, expert practitioners and stakeholders who have been

instrumental in the development of this case study. I will not endeavor to list everyone here, but their

specific and unique ties to the story of Memphis City Schools‘ reform are noteworthy. They enrich our

story as thought leaders and critical friends.

I want to also acknowledge the continued advocacy for the knowledge capture and sharing with regard to

teacher effectiveness reform from the MCS senior management team, specifically Superintendent Cash

and Deputy Superintendent Hamer who believe in our story.

Lastly, I want to extend many thanks to Dr. John Amis, Dr. Celia Anderson, and Dr. Beverly Cross,

panel of research advisors who continue to support and guide my work in case study development

73

Department of Teacher Talent and Effectiveness

Directory

Phone: (901) 416-0135

Email: tei@mcsk12.net

Tequilla Banks

Executive Director

Lachell Boyd

TEI Liaison

Lee Brother

Special Projects Coordinator I – TEI External

Partners

Jennifer Chandler

Special Projects Coordinator II – Reflective

Practice

Marqui Fifer

Special Projects Coordinator II – Teacher

Evaluations and Tenure

Sherrish Holloman

Coordinator – Teacher Support, Retention, and

Recognition

Carla Holloway

Coordinator – Teacher Evaluation and Tenure

Donna James

Executive Assistant to Tequilla Banks

Monica Jordan

Coordinator – MET/Reflective Practice

Jessica Lotz

Special Projects Coordinator

Mike Neal

Coordinator – Career Management

Miesha Turner

Executive Assistant – Internal Programming

Kristin Walker

TEI Archivist

Office of Teacher Effectiveness

Measure (TEM)58

Rorie Harris

Coordinator of Teacher Effectiveness

Measurement

Tracy Brittmon

Research Analyst

Tracey Wilson

Research Analyst

58

The TEM Office reports to the Department of

Research, Evaluation, Assessment and Student

Information (REASI).