ERIC ED515719: Blueprint for Change in South Dakota: State Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2010

2010·1.2 MB·English

by  ERIC

Blueprint
for Change in
South Dakota
2010
State Teacher
Policy Yearbook
National Council on Teacher Quality
Acknowledgments
STATES
State education agencies remain our most important partners in this effort, and their exten-
sive experience has helped to ensure the factual accuracy of the final product. Although this
year’s Blueprint for Change did not require the extensive review typically required of states,
we still wanted to make sure that states’ perspectives were represented. As such, each state
received a draft of the policy updates we identified this year. We would like to thank all of
the states for graciously reviewing and responding to our drafts.
FUNDERS
The primary funders for the 2010 Yearbook were:
n Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation n The George Gund Foundation
n Carnegie Corporation of New York n The Joyce Foundation
n Gleason Family Foundation
The National Council on Teacher Quality does not accept any direct funding from the
federal government.
STAFF
Sandi Jacobs, Project Director
Sarah Brody, Project Assistant
Kelli M. Rosen, Lead Researcher
Trisha M. Madden, Pension Researcher
NCTQ BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Stacey Boyd n Chester E. Finn, Jr. n Ira Fishman n Marti Watson Garlett n Henry L. Johnson
Donald N. Langenberg n Clara M. Lovett n Barbara O’Brien n Carol G. Peck n John Winn
Kate Walsh, President
Thank you to Bryan Gunning and the team at CPS Inc. for their design of the 2010
Blueprint for Change. Thanks also to Colleen Hale and Jeff Hale of EFA Solutions for the
original Yearbook design and ongoing technical support.
About the Yearbook
The 2010 Blueprint for Change is the National Council on Teacher Quality’s fourth annual review of state
laws, rules and regulations that govern the teaching profession. This year’s Yearbook takes a different
approach than our past editions, as it is designed as a companion to the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook,
NCTQ’s most recent comprehensive report on state teacher policies.
The comprehensive Yearbook, a 52-volume state-by-state analysis produced biennially, examines the align-
ment of states’ teacher policies with goals to improve teacher quality. The 2009 report, which addressed key
policy areas such as teacher preparation, evaluation, alternative certification and compensation, found that
states had much work to do to ensure that every child has an effective teacher. Next year we will once again
conduct a comprehensive goal-by-goal analysis of all aspects of states’ teacher policies.
In 2010, an interim year, we set out to help states prioritize among the many areas of teacher policy in need
of reform. With so much to be done, state policymakers may be nonplussed about where to begin. The 2010
Yearbook offers each state an individualized blueprint, identifying state policies most in need of attention.
Although based on our 2009 analyses, this edition also updates states’ progress in the last year, a year that
saw many states make significant policy changes, largely spurred by the Race to the Top competition. Rather
than grade states, the 2010 Blueprint for Change stands as a supplement to the 2009 comprehensive report,
updating states’ positive and negative progress on Yearbook goals and specifying actions that could lead to
stronger policies for particular topics such as teacher evaluation, tenure rules and dismissal policies.
As is our practice, in addition to a national summary report, we have customized this year’s Blueprint for
Change so that each state has its own edition highlighting its progress toward specific Yearbook goals.
Each report also contains charts and graphs showing how the state performed compared
to other states. In addition, we point to states that are leading
the way in areas requiring the most critical attention across
the country.
We hope that this year’s Blueprint for Change serves as an important
guide for governors, state school chiefs, school boards, legislatures and
the many advocates seeking reform. Individual state and national ver-
sions of the 2010 Blueprint for Change, as well as the 2009 State Teacher
Policy Yearbook—including rationales and supporting research for our
policy goals—are available at www.nctq.org/stpy.

Blueprint for Change in South Dakota
The 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook provided a comprehensive review of states’ policies that impact the teaching profes-
sion. As a companion to last year’s comprehensive state-by-state analysis, the 2010 edition provides each state with an
individualized “Blueprint for Change,” building off last year’s Yearbook goals and recommendations.
State teacher policy addresses a great many areas, including teacher preparation, certification, evaluation and compensation.
With so many moving parts, it may be difficult for states to find a starting point on the road to reform. To this end, the follow-
ing brief provides a state-specific roadmap, organized in three main sections.
n Section 1 identifies policy concerns that need critical attention, the areas of highest priority for state policymakers.
n Section 2 outlines “low-hanging fruit,” policy changes that can be implemented in relatively short order.
n Section 3 offers a short discussion of some longer-term systemic issues that states need to make sure stay on the radar.
Current Status of South Dakota’s Teacher Policy
In the 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook, South Dakota had the following grades:
D Area 1: Delivering Well Prepared Teachers D
Area 2: Expanding the Teaching Pool C-
Area 3: Identifying Effective Teachers F
Overall Grade
Area 4: Retaining Effective Teachers C
Area 5: Exiting Ineffective Teachers F
2010 Policy Update:
In the last year, many states made significant changes to their teacher policies, spurred in many cases by the Race
to the Top competition. Based on a review of state legislation, rules and regulations, NCTQ has identified the fol-
lowing recent policy changes in South Dakota:
Teacher Evaluation:
Teachers in their first three years now receive annual evaluations, while teachers with four or more years experi-
ence will be evaluated every other year. Also, by July 1, 2011, South Dakota will have established minimum profes-
sional performance standards for certified teachers. S.B. 24
NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010 : 3
BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
South Dakota Response to Policy Update:
States were asked to review NCTQ’s identified updates and also to comment on policy changes that have occurred
in the last year, other pending changes or teacher quality in the state more generally.
South Dakota confirmed that the identified update represents a complete and accurate list of recent policy
changes.
4 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010
BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
Section 1: Critical Attention Areas
This section identifies the highest priority areas as states work to advance teacher quality.
These are the policy issues that should be at the top of the list for state policymakers. South
Dakota should turn its immediate attention to the following ten issues.
Critical Attention: South Dakota policies that
need to better connect to teacher effectiveness
1.
ENSURE THAT TEACHER EVALUATIONS In addition, to ensure that the evaluation instrument
ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE accurately differentiates among levels of teacher
CLASSROOM: performance, South Dakota should require districts to
utilize multiple rating categories, such as highly effec-
The fundamental purpose of teachers’ formal evalu-
tive, effective, needs improvement and ineffective.
ations should be to determine whether the teachers
A binary system that merely categorizes teachers as
are effective in the classroom. To achieve this pur-
satisfactory or unsatisfactory is inadequate.
pose, evaluations must be based primarily on teachers’
impact on students. While it is certainly appropriate to
include subjective factors, 2. CONNECT TENURE DECISIONS TO
such as classroom obser-
TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS:
Evaluation is a critical
vations, South Dakota
attention area in should adopt a policy that The point at which a teacher’s probationary period
42
requires objective evi- ends, commonly referred to as tenure, should be a sig-
states.
dence of student learn- nificant milestone. Although the awarding of tenure is
ing—including but not a local decision, state policy should reflect the fact that
States on the right track
limited to standardized tenure should only be awarded to teachers who have
include Colorado, Louisiana
and Rhode Island. test scores—to be the consistently demonstrated their effectiveness. South
preponderant criterion of Dakota should require
teacher evaluations. a clear process, such as
Tenure is a critical
a hearing, for districts
In order to ensure that teachers’ strengths are opti- attention area in
to use when consider-
mized and weaknesses addressed, it is critical that 46
ing whether a teacher
teachers are evaluated with sufficient frequency. South states.
advances from probation-
Dakota should require that all nonprobationary teach-
ary to permanent status.
ers be evaluated annually regardless of their previous States on the right track
Such a process would
performance and that all new teachers be evaluated at include Colorado, Delaware
ensure that the local dis- and Rhode Island.
least twice a year. Further, the state should also require
trict reviews the teach-
that the first evaluation for probationary teachers
er’s performance before
occur during the first half of the school year, so that
making a determination. South Dakota should also
new teachers are provided with feedback and support
ensure that evidence of effectiveness is the preponder-
early on.
ant criterion for making tenure decisions. In addition,
the current policy of granting tenure after just three
years does not allow for the accumulation of sufficient
data on teacher performance to support meaningful
NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010 : 5
BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
FIcedsioveg caunclrlisauesisi da1oset rnioroseo?ndms i na en tfdefea tccethniveuerr nee sEvasluata icohnise ivneclmuednet sdtautdaent Evidentche e ofp rsettpeuaodcnehdnete rrl aeenavtra lnciurinattgie irois nosn in Evidenisc e tohf e sctprirutedepreionont nld ieerna ratnneit nnugr e decisions
Alabama
Alaska
decisions. Extending the probationary period—ideally
Arizona
Arkansas to five years—would prevent effective teachers from
California being unfairly denied tenure based on too little data
Colorado and ineffective teachers from being granted tenure
Connecticut prematurely.
Delaware
District of Columbia1
Florida 3. PREVENT INEFFECTIVE TEACHERS
Georgia
FROM REMAINING IN THE
Hawaii
CLASSROOM INDEFINITELY:
Idaho
Illinois South Dakota should explicitly make teacher inef-
Indiana fectiveness grounds for dismissal so that districts do
Iowa not feel they lack the legal basis for terminating con-
Kansas
sistently poor performers, and it should steer clear of
Kentucky
euphemistic terms that
Louisiana
are ambiguous at best
Maine Dismissal is a critical
and may be interpreted
Maryland2 attention area in
as concerning derelic-
Massachusetts 46
Michigan tion of duty rather than states.
Minnesota ineffectiveness. In South
Mississippi Dakota, the process is States on the right track
Missouri the same regardless of include Oklahoma and
Montana the grounds for dismissal, Rhode Island.
Nebraska which include “breach
Nevada of contract, poor perfor-
New Hampshire
mance, incompetency, gross immorality, unprofessional
New Jersey
conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, or the viola-
New Mexico
tion of any policy or regulation of the school district.”
New York
North Carolina Nonprobationary teachers who are dismissed for any
North Dakota grounds, including ineffectiveness, are entitled to due
Ohio process. However, cases that drag on for years drain
Oklahoma
resources from school districts and create a disincen-
Oregon
tive for districts to attempt to terminate poor per-
Pennsylvania
formers. Therefore, the state must ensure that the
Rhode Island
opportunity to appeal occurs only once and only at
South Carolina
the district level and involves only adjudicators with
SOUTH DAKOTA
educational expertise.
Tennessee
Texas 1 The District of Columbia has no state-level policy, but District
of Columbia Public Schools requires that student academic
Utah achievement count for 50% of evaluation score.
Vermont 2 Legislation articulates that student growth must account for a
Virginia significant portion of evaluations, with no single criterion count-
ing for more than 35% of the total performance evaluation.
Washington However, the State Board is on track to finalize regulations that
West Virginia limit any single component of student growth, such as standard-
ized test scores, to 35%, but add other measures of student
Wisconsin
progress for a total of 50%.
Wyoming
16 10 4
Critical Attention: South Dakota policies that
fail to ensure teachers are well prepared
4. ENSURE THAT ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 5. ENSURE THAT ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
KNOW THE SCIENCE OF READING:
KNOW ELEMENTARY CONTENT MATH:
Scientific research has
Aspiring elementary teachers must begin to acquire
Preparation to teach shown that there are five a deep conceptual knowledge of the mathematics
reading is a critical essential components of
they will teach, moving well beyond mere procedural
attention area in effective reading instruc-
understanding. Leading mathematicians and math
43 tion: explicit and system-
educators have found that elementary teachers are
states.
atic instruction in phone-
not well served by mathematics courses designed for
mic awareness, phonics,
a general audience and that methods courses do not
States on the right track
fluency, vocabulary and
provide sufficient content preparation. Although the
include Connecticut,
comprehension. This sci-
Massachusetts and Virginia. standards South Dakota relies on for teacher prepa-
ence of reading has led
ration address areas of
to breakthroughs that
mathematics such as
can dramatically reduce the number of children des- algebra, geometry and Preparation to teach
tined to become functionally illiterate or barely liter- data analysis, the state mathematics is a critical
ate adults. Whether through standards or coursework attention area in
should specifically artic-
requirements, states must ensure that their prepara- 49
ulate that preparation
states.
tion programs graduate only teacher candidates who
programs deliver mathe-
know how to teach children to read. Not only should
matics content geared to
A state on the right track
South Dakota require that its teacher preparation pro-
the explicit needs of ele-
is Massachusetts.
grams prepare their teacher candidates in the science
mentary teachers. South
of reading, but the state should also require an assess-
Dakota should also adopt
ment prior to certification that tests whether teachers
a rigorous mathematics assessment, such as the one
indeed possess the requisite knowledge in scientifi-
required by Massachusetts. At the very least, the state
cally based reading instruction. Ideally this would be
should consider requiring a mathematics subscore on
a stand-alone test (such as the excellent assessments
its general content knowledge test, not only to ensure
required by Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia),
that teacher candidates have minimum mathemat-
but if it were combined with general pedagogy or ele-
ics knowledge but also to allow them to test out of
mentary content, the state should require a separate
coursework requirements.
subscore for the science of reading.
NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010 : 7
BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA
6. ENSURE ADEQUATE SUBJECT-MATTER 7. ENSURE THAT TEACHER
PREPARATION FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL PREPARATION PROGRAMS ARE
TEACHERS: ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE QUALITY
OF THE TEACHERS THEY PRODUCE:
Middle school grades are critical years of schooling,
yet too many states fail to distinguish the knowledge States should consider factors related to program
and skills needed by middle school teachers from performance in the approval of teacher preparation
those needed by elementary teachers. Whether teach- programs. Although the quality of both the subject-
ing a single subject in a matter preparation and professional sequence is cru-
departmentalized setting cial, there are also additional measures that can pro-
Middle school licensure is a or teaching multiple sub- vide the state and the public with meaningful, readily
critical attention area in jects in a self-contained understandable indicators of how well programs are
22
setting, middle school doing when it comes to preparing teachers to be suc-
states.
teachers must be able to cessful in the classroom. South Dakota should make
teach significantly more objective outcomes that go beyond licensure pass
States on the right track
advanced content than rates, such as graduates’ evaluation results, retention
include Georgia, Kentucky
elementary teachers do. rates and students’ academic achievement gains, a
and Louisiana.
To ensure adequate con- central component of its teacher preparation program
tent preparation of mid- approval process, and it should establish precise stan-
dle school teachers, South Dakota is urged to no longer dards for program performance that are more useful for
permit middle school teachers to teach on a general- accountability purposes.
ist license and instead adopt for all teachers middle- South Dakota should also Teacher preparation
grades licensure policies that are distinguishable from post an annual report program accountability is a
elementary teacher certification. card on its website that critical attention area in
not only details the data 30

states.
it collects but also identi-

fies programs that fail to
States on the right track
meet these criteria.
include Colorado and
Louisiana.
8 : NCTQ STATE TEACHER POLICY YEARBOOK 2010
BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IN SOUTH DAKOTA