Date post: | 25-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vivian-woods |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Ohio Teacher Evaluation System
A Model For ChangeWilliam A. Bussey
Superintendent
Mid-East Career and Technology Centers
Implementing OTES through the Ohio Appalachian Collaborative (OAC) and Teacher Incentive Funds(TIF)
All teachers will be evaluated using the OTES Model-Teacher Performance Standards
All administrators are credentialed evaluators
All teachers will develop and monitor one Student Learning Objective
Ohio TIF Requirement 2012-2013 OTES Implementation
Review the processes, results, and challenges with both the performance rating and student growth measures
Reflect on the good, the bad, and the ugly
Review any changes as we transition to the "authentic" evaluation tool for teachers this coming school year
I have brought with me the experts!◦ Barb Funk◦ Dan Coffman◦ Scott Sabino◦ Michelle Patrick
TODAY’S FOCUS
OTES Team created in the Spring of 2012
◦ Executive Director◦ Building Directors◦ New Asst. Director-role is evaluation◦ Asst. Director - role Curriculum and OAC/TIF ◦ Teachers
OTES PD Implementation
Introduced the OTES framework to all leadership teams
District Transformation TeamStrategic Compensation TeamOTES TeamFormative Instructional Practices TeamAssessment/Literacy Tech TeamHSTW Site Coordinators
Train key people within the district
Success starts with a solid foundation
Teacher led PD would increase staff buy-in
OTES Leadership Training
◦ Ensure teachers understood:
Framework of the new evaluation system New components New tools New process Process would increase teacher/admin collaboration
time
Year long Professional Development Focus
Initial OTES Staff training◦ Teacher Performance – OTES Model
7 Teaching Standards Placed in the performance rubric Teacher Evidence Calibration of a standard to a teaching video Completed self-assessment
◦ Student Growth – Student Learning Objectives
Staff PD
o November PD• Mini Sessions on Formative Instructional Practices,
Literacy w/CC Anchor Standards in Reading and Writing, BFK and Value Added, Teacher Evidence
o February PD• State training manual on Student Growth Measures
o Quarterly Meetings used as check points
o Conversations with evaluator
Staff PD cont.
The Process-Learning It Together
Pre-Pre Observation Conference◦ Met with teachers (last two week of October) to review the process timeline and
elements (paperwork and documentation) and answer questions. ◦ Follow-up to In-service Day.
Self-Assessment Tool (Optional in the process, but discovered to be a MUST DO!)
Professional Growth Plan (See example)◦ Teacher Performance Goal (Goal 2)- Influenced by Self-Assessment Tool and Ohio
Teaching Standards◦ Self-directed◦ Statement of the goal and how it will be measured
◦ Student Achievement Goal (Goal 1)- Influenced by SLO (Use standard from pre-assessment used to develop SLO)
◦ Specific standard and how it will be measured
The Process- Learning It Together
Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric (TPER)- (See example)◦ Evaluation begins with Proficient (“Rock solid teaching”)◦ Video examples- see NIET Training Modules◦ Examine key words and phrases embedded in rubric at each
level (Proficient, Accomplished and Developing)
Pre-Conference ◦ Teachers complete/submit responses using ohiotpes.com◦ Face-to-face
Observation ◦ 30 minutes◦ Script the lesson!
The Process- Learning It Together
Post-Conference◦ Follows each observation◦ Specific questions relating to the lesson and the instructor◦ Relate to TPER◦ Area for Reinforcement/Refinement
Classroom Walkthroughs (2-5 per teacher)◦ Shared with the teacher◦ Opportunity for feedback◦ Used paper form and ohiotpes.com◦ The more often, the better!
Set schedule early and put it on the teachers. It’s the teachers’ evaluation and their responsibility to provide evidence/documentation relating to the TPER.
The Process-Learning It Together
Round 1Pre-Conference Observation Walkthrough(s)Post-Conference
Round 2Pre-Conference Observation Walkthrough(s)Post-Conference
Summative Performance Rating Conference
Student Growth Measures
Use measures of student growth effectivelyin a high quality evaluation system
Make informed decisions on the right measures
Make informed decisions about the appropriate weight of measures
Increase reliability and validity of selected measures
Considerations for Building a Strong, Reliable Measures of Student Growth
Teachers completed the development, implementation and scoring process
SLO timeline with specific due dates, calendar with expectations
Teachers created their SLO and chose their growth target
Implemented the SLO
Calculated the results
Three main types of targets used◦ Whole group◦ Tiered/grouped targets◦ Individual Targets
Student Learning Objectives
Whole group target-one target for all students in SLO◦ All students will score a 75% or better on the post assessment
Tiered/grouped target-range of targets for groups of students◦ Pre-assessment scores between 0 – 25 would be expected to
score between 25-50 on post assessment
Individual target-each student in the SLO receives a target score◦ Using a formula such as (100 – pretest)/2 + the pretest =
growth target
TYPES OF TARGETS
Teacher Name: Formula Method School: Mid East CTC - Zanesville Campus
SLO: Assessment Name:
Student NameBaseline
Growth Target Final Score Met Target
1 28 64 80 Yes
2 20 60 48 No
3 44 72 76 Yes
4 28 64 76 Yes
5 12 56
6 48 74 84 Yes
7 20 60 44 No
8 28 64 52 No
9 40 70 88 Yes
10 32 66 84 Yes
11 28 64 60 No
6 of the 10 students met/exceed their growth target
60%
Descriptive RatingDescriptive Rating
Percentage Exceed/Met
Numerical Rating
TieredFormula
Whole Group
Most Effective
90-100% 5 10% 20% 10%
Above Average
80-89% 4 30% 20% 36%
Average70-79% 3 20% 0 9%
Approaching Average 60-69% 2 20% 6% 9%
Least Effective
59 or below 1 20% 54% 36%
Evaluation Matrix
Stud
ent G
row
th
Teacher Performance
Accomplished Rating Proficient Rating Developing Rating Ineffective Rating
Abov
e
5 Accomplished Accomplished Proficient Developing
Expe
cted
2, 3
, 4
Proficient Proficient Developing Developing
Belo
w
1 Developing Developing Ineffective Ineffective
Class of 2013Results
Fall 2011 469 students were tested 81% (379) students earned a bronze or better
Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online
Spring 2012 90 students were tested 71% (64) students earned a bronze or better
2011-2012 Level I2012-2013 Level II
40% Bronze 50% Silver5% Gold5% Not yet
27% Bronze 64% Silver 7% Gold 2%Not yet
NCRC District Results - 2013
Occupational Profiles
14 Programs Bronze
1 Program Gold
11 Programs Silver
70% Met or Exceeded
Occupational Profile!
Class of 2014 Results
Fall 2012 467 students were tested 86% students earned a bronze or better
Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online
Spring 2013 60 students were tested 55% students earned a bronze or better
2012-2013 Level I2013-2014 Level II
37% Bronze 54% Silver 4% Gold 5%Not yet
NCRC District Results - 2014
ACT Quality Core District Results
Content Area
2012-2013 2011-2012
2010 -2011
English 151 150 146
Math 143 143.25 141.75
Science 147.5 145 143.50
Zanesville Campus
SubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark 2013 2012 2011
Biology 156 149 145.2 142.5
Chemistry 157 147 144.9 144
Algebra I 152 142 142.1 142.9
Geometry 152 144 142.9 140.3
Algebra II 149 143 144.5 142.4
PreCalculus 145 143 144.5 141.2
English 10 147 151 147.8 144.8
English 11 152 149 150.2 147.3
Physics 150
US History 150
English 9 154
English 12 153
Buffalo Campus
SubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark 2013 2012 2011
Biology 156 147 145.4 144.2
Chemistry 157 145.4 143.5
Algebra I 152 141 142.6 142.4
Geometry 152 144 143.2 141.6
Algebra II 149 144 143.9 142.8
PreCalculus 145
English 10 147 154 150.9 144.4
English 11 152 151 151.9 146.3
Physics 150
US History 150
English 9 154
English 12 153
Teacher Category
Value Adde
d
Vendor Assessment
s
LEA Measures Total
SLO/Other
Shared Attribution
A (Value Added)
30% 10% 10% 50%
B (vendor Assessments
10% 30% 10% 50%
C (LEA Measures)
40% 10% 50%
Example of 2012-2013 SGM
Data Analysis and Assessment Literacy
Data Analysis and Setting Growth Targets◦ Data driven decisions – What data?◦ Engage in transparent conversations around
student growth
Outliers, class size, averages, ranges Identify trends, patterns, expectations for mastery Gather other available data Zoom-in and identify similarities and differences in
students
Key Takeaways
Build staff Assessment Literacy
Priority Standards
Appropriate assessments
Quality Assessment Design
Assessment Blue Print reflects instruction
Instructional Tasks move students to meet standards
Significance of the SLO Pilot Work
Conversations and Collaboration
Greater focus on Student Learning
Deeper reflection of the:◦ teaching and learning process ◦ accountability of growth for all students ◦ role student growth plays in determining Educator
Effectiveness
Policy developed utilizing the template provided by ODE ◦ Simple to allow for flexibility◦ Change as we negotiate our contract
Further development by the district SLO Evaluation Committee for SLO guidelines
District Policy - Process
REFLECTIONS. . . Let the “real” thinking take place… • What made us breathe a sigh of relief when it
was over
• What went well/positive elements • Yes, some things were quite positive!
• Suggestions/ways to use our internal feedback and insight to feed forward
REFLECTIONS – breathing a sigh of relief because…
Roller Coaster of Emotions
WHEW that took some time!◦ 5 hours per teacher per observation? *gulp*◦ What do I give up?◦ Walkthroughs?
Technology◦ eTPES downfalls
Other evaluations? Walkthrough data?
◦ Support for all levels of learners
REFLECTIONS – What Went Well Roller Coaster of Emotions
Process was overall positive◦ From Self-Assessments Reflection◦ Consensus: “It’s not so bad”!!
Technology based
Trial year! WOOHOOO
Focused purpose and common dialogue◦ Holistic ◦ Rubric ◦ Criteria not a checklist
Collaboration◦ Administrator with associate school principals◦ Administrators with administrator◦ Administrators with teachers◦ Teachers with teachers◦ Utopia!
REFLECTIONS – ways to improve
Self-Assessment – everyone Walkthrough data – form that collects data we need?
◦ Experimenting with Google Forms?◦ Use to see trends
Non-instructional staff evaluations◦ OSCES, ASCA, and OTES◦ Input from staff
Opportunities for more alignment◦ for professionals to align all goals; IPDP, OTES/OPES, Resident
Educator, ◦ to look for trends and align with PD, ◦ to group professionals with aligned goals as they work together to
improve their practice, ◦ to align ourselves as evaluators - do we truly calibrate? Can we
better align (with each other) by discussing our ratings and why, etc., etc., etc.