Your Leadership Matters: Leveraging EE for More Impact in 2024-25

By Dr. Joe Schroeder, Associate Executive Director, AWSA

Throughout the twelve-year existence of Educator Effectiveness (EE) in Wisconsin, there have been two constants:  (1) EE’s founding purpose to improve practice and support for adults so that student outcomes improve and (2) the considerable commitment required for meaningful EE implementation.  Meanwhile, I have witnessed two key variables related to its impact:  (1) the mindset folks bring to EE and (2) the approach that leaders use for local implementation.  As a new school year gets underway, this article aims to:

Since its inception a dozen years ago, DPI has allowed Wisconsin districts to select either the State model, the CESA 6 model, or another DPI-approved equivalency model for implementation.  In most cases, districts are using either the DPI/State model or the CESA 6 option.  This summer, DPI announced several key changes in EE for those using the DPI/State model, whereas CESA 6 largely continues as it has for some years in its approaches.

Among some of the core requirements and key updates within the DPI/StateI EE Model:

• DPI sustains 6 EE Process Requirements.  DPI also lists a number of Flexibilities within the EE system, which I encourage you to make good use of in order to get more impact for the effort.
• Districts using the DPI/State model must now implement the 2022 version of the Danielson Framework for Teaching as the framework for instructional evaluation.  Please see this document that provides a transition overview as well as another that provides conversation points for administrators in explaining the framework changes with teachers.
• 2024-25 is the last year where DPI will offer Frontline to State model districts as the standard management platform for Educator Effectiveness.  Please see options for future local EE record keeping (including access to freely available Google forms or Microsoft forms) here. 
• Regarding training to obtain and/or sustain evaluator certification/calibration, please see this link.

Among some of the core approaches and key updates within the CESA 6 EE Model:

• The same 6 EE Process Requirements apply to districts using the CESA 6 model as for those using the DPI/State model, since EE is founded in statewide statutory law.
• CESA 6 staff have increasingly focused their EE supports on an approach called Rapid Cycle  Feedback (RCF).  In fact, their EE training and forms are now solely in alignment with RCF, which is an approach we at AWSA have long advocated due to its proven positive impact on many levels.
• For CESA 6 model districts, both the core EE framework and the Frontline Education evaluation management system remain the same for this year and into the foreseeable future, although some new refinements (e.g., in goal-setting and SLO rating processes) are now being utilized.
• Consult the CESA 6 EE Enhancements Process Guide or Help Center for more information.

Over the past twelve years, I have written and spoken on numerous occasions to encourage Wisconsin leaders to leverage legitimate flexibilities from how Educator Effectiveness was originally launched/understood in order to ensure significant impact from all the EE effort.  Moreover, AWSA Thought Leaders groups we have convened at different junctures over the years have typically affirmed findings like these:

1. EE practices remain traditional in many systems (i.e., focused on evaluating, rather than on developing)
2. Educator mindset while implementing EE often defaults to compliance
3. Schools/districts are seeing higher EE impact on practice when frequent, unannounced mini-observations (like those associated with rapid cycle feedback) are used as the standard approach for professional feedback instead of a traditional method of formal observation.

Therefore, given this background, I encourage you to consider using an approach of short, frequent classroom visits and regular targeted feedback on a focused set of practices for each teacher that you observe.  For those interested, the CESA 6 process for Rapid Cycle Feedback provides a good overview.

I say this because, in many ways, Educator Effectiveness in Wisconsin remains a tale of two starkly different scenarios based largely on the mindset and approach that folks employ in their local setting.  In districts representing Scenario A, EE is viewed as a compliance-focused, component-chasing exercise of formal observations, where evaluation is generally “an event” rather than an ongoing process of targeted feedback aimed at continuous improvement.  Is it any surprise then that in such places EE is viewed negatively and has little impact?  However, in districts representing Scenario B, schools embed EE within a data-based continuous improvement process, focusing on a “vital few” number of adult practices aimed at addressing data-based student learning needs, where frequent, usually unannounced mini-observations and follow-up feedback conversations occur to support educators in the ongoing challenges of transforming adult work, particularly upon the vital few practices of local focus.  In such instances, teachers are often receiving short mini-observations and feedback conversations 6-10 times per school year through an approach coined “rapid cycle feedback.”  Moreover, school/districts living in such a Scenario B context reap other benefits to their efforts.  Namely, statewide formal evaluation results have found that robust implementation of the EE System process improves the quality and use of professional performance feedback as well as student achievement, while also closing achievement gaps.  Findings also suggest that the Wisconsin EE System improves school culture and retention rates.