Evaluation of Effectiveness: South Carolina

Analysis of South Carolina's policies

South Carolina does not require that objective evidence of student learning be the preponderant criterion of its teacher evaluations.

The state requires local districts to use the statewide evaluation system (ADEPT), which is designed to measure teachers' success in meeting the state's 10 performance standards, or to use a district evaluation instrument that is state approved and equivalent to the state instrument's expectation. These 10 standards fall under four domains: planning, instruction, classroom environment and professionalism, which are all designed to measure a teacher's ability to improve student achievement. The performance standards mostly consider teachers' behavior and practices. The state added a "unit work sample" to bolster evidence of teachers' impact on student achievement; however, it does not appear that this is collected and reviewed in a way that would characterize it as objective evidence. 
Classroom observations are required. 
In March 2013, pursuant to South Carolina's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Waiver, the federal government approved the Superintendent's educator evaluation guidelines. The proposed system will incorporate student learning as a "significant" component and use a multitiered rating system. 

**
POLICY UPDATE
Teacher support and evaluation model reflects the following components/percentages:
Professional Performance: 50%
Impact on Individual Student Growth: 30%
District Choice: 20%

Citation

ADEPT Statute 59-26-40 http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/50/documents/ADEPT_Statute_Amended2012.pdf ADEPT System Guidelines http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/50/documents/adept_guidelines.pdf Memo from Superintendent, March 5, 2013 http://ed.sc.gov/agency/lpa/documents/ESEA_Memo_030513.pdf

Recommendations for South Carolina

Require instructional effectiveness to be the preponderant criterion of any teacher evaluation. 
South Carolina's new guidelines fall short by failing to require that evidence of student learning be the most significant criterion, and the state's vague language leaves room for interpretation as to the actual measure of "significant" in the overall evaluation score. South Carolina should either require a common evaluation instrument in which evidence of student learning is the most significant criterion, or it should specifically require that student learning be the preponderant criterion in local evaluation processes. This can be accomplished by requiring objective evidence to count for at least half of the evaluation score or through other scoring mechanisms, such as a matrix, that ensure that nothing affects the overall score more. Whether state or locally developed, a teacher should not be able to receive a satisfactory rating if found ineffective in the classroom. 
Ensure that evaluations also include classroom observations that specifically focus on and document the effectiveness of instruction.
Although South Carolina requires classroom observations as part of teacher evaluations, the state should articulate guidelines that focus classroom observations on the quality of instruction, as measured by student time on task, student grasp or mastery of the lesson objective and efficient use of class time.

Codify evaluation requirements.
To ensure that teachers are evaluated based on the requirements articulated in the guidelines, South Carolina should codify pertinent criteria. This will ensure that student growth data continue to be a part of teacher evaluations even after the expiration of the ESEA waiver. 

State response to our analysis

South Carolina recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis. The state added that nationally, no state is planning to follow NCTQ's recommendation that more than 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation should be based on student achievement. 

Last word

NCTQ does not recommend that more than 50 percent of a teacher's evaluation should be based on student achievement. This goal recommends that student achievement should be the preponderant criterion, meaning it should not be possible to receive an effective rating overall if the objective evidence suggests otherwise. Nineteen states now have such an evaluation system (see Figure 63).