Excellent Teaching

Connecticut receives 1 out of 4 available points for improving teacher preparation programs.

In 2015, Connecticut established legislation requiring teacher candidates in preparation programs to have field experiences in both low-achieving and high-achieving schools.¹ That piece of legislation also required the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) to annually report on the quality of teacher preparation programs.² However, according to a letter sent by Commissioner Wentzell to the General Assembly, no such report has ever been publicly produced.³ Once this is implemented, the CSDE should revoke approval from teacher preparation programs that do not produce enough effective teachers.

The Connecticut State Department of Education should also provide clear coursework guidelines for all teacher preparation programs. And the state should encourage growth of alternate routes to certification by allowing effectiveness measures to be substituted for the standards of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP).⁴

Connecticut receives 0 out of 4 available points for tying teacher evaluation and support to student achievement.

In 2012, the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) established that 45% of a teacher’s overall evaluation would be based on student growth indicators, of which half could be linked to statewide assessments.⁵ This new system was piloted in the 2012-2013 school year.⁶ However, the state delayed the assessment component from counting towards evaluations until 2015-16,⁷ and then again until 2017-18.⁸

Then, after repeatedly “de-coupling” student assessments from teacher evaluations for short-term periods, the State Board of Education voted to permanently prohibit the use of assessment results in teacher evaluations in 2017.⁹

Connecticut should link evaluation results to teacher compensation and placement, and should prioritize variables besides seniority in layoff decisions. Finally, Connecticut needs to build a K-12 data system that links teacher evaluation results to student, course, and administrative data.

Connecticut receives 0 out of 3 available points for practices to develop and retain effective teachers.

Existing statute requires each school district to establish professional development committees (PDECs) to create annual professional development plans for its certified employees. PDECs are part of the teacher evaluation plans which must be annually approved by Connecticut State Department of Education.¹⁰ Recently, the CSBE also developed guidelines for PDECs to follow in connecting professional development to the improvement of instructional practices.¹¹

In addition to implementing individualized professional development statewide, Connecticut must also restructure teacher compensation so that it is tied to both performance and a career ladder.

Connecticut receives 4 out of 4 available points for tying teacher tenure to effectiveness.

Legislation passed in 2012 incorporated the new teacher evaluation and support system—which measures effectiveness—into the determination of whether teachers will receive tenure protections.¹² Through the evaluation process, administrators must identify specific professional learning that will help teachers achieve their classroom goals and objectives.¹³

Teachers rated as “ineffective” in the new evaluation and support system will be given a year of individualized professional development, and should be terminated upon failure to improve. In addition, teachers who have tenure may also be removed for ineffectiveness.¹⁴

Connecticut receives 0 out of 4 points for attracting and retaining highly effective teachers in the neediest districts and schools.

Currently, the Teacher Negotiation Act requires that conditions of employment be collectively bargained.¹⁵ Connecticut would benefit from changes so that incentives could be used to attract and retain effective teachers, and provide them with resources and opportunities such as mentorship.

In addition, the state should have data on teacher effectiveness to drive policy and decision-making. In 2016, the Freedom of Information Commission ruled that aggregate summative educator evaluation ratings should be made publicly available.¹⁶ The Connecticut State Department of Education is apparently collecting longitudinal data that connects teachers with courses and students (TCS).¹⁷ However, recent testimony in the “CCJEF v. Rell” case suggests that the department did not use or distribute any of the student growth data on teachers.¹⁸