Marco Ferro, Director of Public Policy

Larry Nielsen, Field Consultant

With Special Guest Stars:

Tammy Pilcher, PresidentHelena Education Association

Mike Thiel, PresidentKalispell Education Association

Presentation Format

Evaluation Guidelines

Implementation Guidelines

Examples from the Field

Evaluation GuidelinesNational Education Association

http://www.nea.org/grants/46326.htm

American Federation of Teachershttp://www.aft.org/pdfs/press/improvemodel011210.pdf

Administrative Rules of Montana, Chapter 55

Schools of Promise Performance Appraisal System

(SOPPAS)

Chapter 55Current Accreditation Standard

10.55.701(4) The board of trustees shall have valid, written contracts with all regularly employed certified administrative, supervisory, and teaching personnel.

New Accreditation Standard effective July 1, 2013

10.55.701(4)(a) The evaluation system used by a school district for licensed staff shall, at a minimum:

1.     Be conducted on at least an annual basis with regard to nontenure staff and according to a regular schedule adopted by the district for all tenure staff;

2.      Be aligned with applicable district goals, standards of the board of public education and the district’s mentorship and induction program required under 10.55.701(8)(c);

3.      Identify skill sets are to be evaluated;4.      Include both formative and summative elements;5.      Include an assessment of the educator’s effectiveness in supporting every

student in meeting rigorous learning goals through the performance of the educator’s duties. 

(b) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall develop and publish as an appendix to the Chapter 55 rules model evaluation instruments that comply with this rule in collaboration with the MEA-MFT, Montana Rural Education Association, Montana School Boards Association, School Administrators of Montana, and Montana Small School Alliance. A school district adopting and using one of the model instruments shall be construed to have complied with this rule, though use of one of the models shall not be required provided that the district’s evaluation instrument and process substantially conforms to the requirements set forth in this section.

SOPPAS

Based on Delaware’s Performance Appraisal System which is modeled after Charlotte Danielson’s work on “Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching”.

SOPPASThe Five Components

Planning and Preparation Classroom Environment Instruction Professional Responsibilities Student Improvement

Planning and PreparationCriteria for Evaluation

Selecting Instructional Goals Designing Coherent Instruction Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and

Pedagogy Demonstrating Knowledge of Students

Classroom Environment Criteria for Evaluation

Managing Classroom Procedures Managing Student Behavior Creating an Environment to Support

Learning Organizing Physical Space

InstructionCriteria for Evaluation

Engaging Student Learning Demonstrates Flexibility Communicating Clearly and Accurately Using Questions and Discussion Techniques

Professional ResponsibilitiesCriteria for Evaluation

Communicating with Family Following District Policies and Procedures Growing and Developing Professionally Reflecting on Professional Practice

Student Improvement Should include data from multiple measures. Should include Data from the CRT. Basis for goal setting in first three

components Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, and Instruction comes from goal setting in Student Improvement.

Student Improvement Assessments

Through Component Five, teachers demonstrate their understanding of assessment for, and of, learning and how each plays a valuable part in teaching and learning.

Pay close attention to this part of the appraisal plan as it is key to improving teaching. Assessment should drive planning, preparation, and instruction for a formative and summative sense.

Evaluation ProcessGoal setting as an individual and School

Formative Observations and Interactions

Reflections on Goals

Summative Evaluation

Implementation Guidelines

Bargain it!

Helena Implementation

Started through on-going bargaining. Committee of educators and administrators. Worked eighteen months, research and

development.

Helena StandardsStandard 1: (Preparation and Content) The educator identifies learning targets appropriate to the specific discipline, age,

and range of cognitive levels being taught. Standard 2: (Instructional Strategies) The educator demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness in adjusting instruction

to meet student needs. Standard 3: (Environment for Learning) The educator organizes, allocates, and manages the resources of time, physical

space, activities, and attention.

Helena StandardsStandard 4: (Student Assessment and Progress Monitoring) The educator maintains appropriate and accurate records of student achievement. Standard 5: (Collaborative Relationship) The educator establishes collaborative relationship with colleagues, parents, agencies, and other in the community to support and enhance student learning and well-being.

Standard 6: (Professional Development)

The educator accepts evaluative feedback in a professional

manner and is receptive to constructive suggestions.

Year 1 2011-12

1. Training provided district wide to all educators and administrators.

2. All tenured educators will use the rubric for self evaluation and will not be formally evaluated this year. Educators on PCAP will submit CDP and PSC as usual (New educators to the District do not have to do a CDP their first year, however they must do a PSC).

3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric.

4. Classroom walk-throughs may be utilized for practice by evaluators.

Year 2 2012-13

1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan. Those on PCAP, the CDP will become the PGP (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 2. 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric . 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be conducted by their evaluator.

Year 3 2013-14

1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC). 2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. 3. All non-tenured educators will be evaluated using the rubric 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be conducted by their evaluator.

Year 4 2014-15

1. All educators will submit a Professional Growth Plan (New educators to the District do not have to do a PGP their first year, however they must do a PSC).

2. Another 1/3 of tenured educators will be in the summative evaluation year and will be formally evaluated using the rubric. All educators will have been evaluated using the rubric and be on a 3 year cycle.

3. All non-tenured will be evaluated using the rubric . 4. Two classroom walk-throughs for every educator should be

conducted by their evaluator.

Kalispell

New instrument based on the work of Charlotte Danielson.

New hires and tenured staff on a voluntary basis under an Memorandum of Agreement (Spring 2012)

Training All district administrators and a group of

teacher leaders are engaging in training around the instrument.

Training is on-going (started in August) and is provided by the New Teacher Center. The training is being paid for by a grant and is running in conjunction with mentor training.

Collaboration

The committee charged with this work is chaired by the superintendent. Teacher leaders and building level administrators are included as committee members.

The instrument is being reworked as needed.

Pilot Program By agreement (MOA) the new evaluation

program will remain in this pilot stage for one year after all the training has been completed. After this period the new program will become the evaluation method for all teaching staff.

On-going Development

Parallel instruments are being developed for librarians and counselors.

Contact Information Marco Ferro mferro@mea-mft.org Larry Nielsen lnielsen@mea-mft.org Tammy Pilcher tpilcher@helena.k12.mt.us Mike Thiel mthiel@aboutmontana.net

Helena School District Evaluation Site http://www.helena.k12.mt.us/district/departme/personne/newteach/

index.dhtm

Kalispell School District Evaluation Sitehttp://www.sd5.k12.mt.us/site/Default.aspx?PageID=145