Teacher Evaluation PanelTuesday, February 12, 2013
Panelists Glenn McClain
Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 (CO) Jan Rose Petro
Colorado Department of Education Patricia Hardy
Pennsylvania Department of Education Linda Rocks
Bossier Parish School System (LA)
Colorado’s State Model Evaluation System
Glenn McClain, Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7Jan Rose Petro, Colorado Department of Education
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
VisionAll students in Colorado will become educated and
productive citizens capable of succeeding in a globally competitive workforce.
MissionThe mission of CDE is to shape, support, and safeguard a
statewide education system that prepares students for success in a globally competitive world.
Together We Can
Successful students• Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and
workforce ready.• Increase achievement for all students and close achievement gaps.• Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary
education and the workforce.• Increase national and international competitiveness for all students.
Great teachers and leaders• Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators.• Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness
of new educators.• Eliminate the educator equity gap.
Outstanding schools and districts• Increase school and district performance.• Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array
of high quality school choices for students.
Best education system in the nation• Lead the nation in policy, innovation, and positive outcomes for
students.• Operate with excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness to become the
best SEA in the nation.• Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE.
Students
Educators
Schools/ Districts
State
GOALS
PowerPoint Template
Driving Questions
What do we want students, educators, schools, and districts to know and be able to do?
How will we know if expectations are met?
How will we respond when help is needed and to support continued growth?
Colorado Academic Standards Assessments
• RTI• PBSI• Targeted interventions• IEPs
Educator quality standards
Educator evaluations
• Induction• Mentoring• Professional development plans• Remediation plans
Performance indicators
School and district performance frameworks
• Unified planning• Priority• Turnaround
Students
Educators
Schools/Districts
Expanding Student Learning
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System
1. Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.
2. The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.
3. The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.
4. The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process.
5. Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.
Continuous ImprovementState model
system developed
Local evaluation systems
implemented
CDE collects data
State Council makes
recommendations
Rules reviewed and revised
2. Annual
Orientation
3.Self-
Assessment
4.Review of
Annual Goals and
Performance Plan
5.Mid-Year Review
6.Evaluator
Assessment
7.End-of-Year
Review
8.Final
Ratings
9.Goal-Setting
and Performance
Planning
1.Training
Educator Evaluation Cycle
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
Framework for System to Evaluate Principals
Definition of Principal Effectiveness
I. Strategy II. Instruction III. CultureV.
ManagementIV. Human Resources
VI. External Development
VII. Student Growth
50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Growth MeasuresWeighting: How Much Does Each Standard
Count Towards Overall Performance?
Number and Percentage Other Measures of Teachers Aligned with CDE
Guidelines
School Performance Other Measures Framework Aligned with CDE
Guidelines
Weighting:Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards
Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?
Performance Standards
Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective
Quality Standards
STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS
Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers
Definition of Teacher Effectiveness
I. Know Content
50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Growth MeasuresWeighting: How Much Does Each Standard
Count Towards Overall Performance?
Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with
CDE Guidelines
State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines
Match of test to teaching assignments
Weighting:Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards
Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?
Performance StandardsIneffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective
Quality StandardsII. Establish Environment
III. Facilitate Learning
IV. Reflect on Practice
V. Demonstrate Leadership
VI. Student Growth
Appeals Process
Principal Quality Standards
I: Principals demonstrate
strategic leadership.
II: Principals demonstrate instructional leadership.
III: Principals demonstrate school culture and equity
leadership.
IV: Principals demonstrate human resource leadership.
V: Principals demonstrate managerial leadership.
VI: Principals demonstrate
external development leadership.
VII: Principals demonstrate
leadership around student academic
growth.
Teacher Quality StandardsI: Teachers
demonstrate mastery of and pedagogical
expertise in the content they teach.
The elementary teacher is an expert in literacy and mathematics and is knowledgeable in all other content that he or she teaches. The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathematics and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area(s).
II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive, and
respectful learning environment for a
diverse population of students.
III: Teachers plan and deliver effective
instruction and create an environment that
facilitates learning for their students.
IV: Teachers reflect on their practice.
V:Teachers demonstrate leadership.
VI: Teachers take responsibility for
student academic growth.
Application of Quality Standards • Each quality standard includes “elements” — which provide a more
detailed description of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard.
• All districts must base their evaluations on the full set of quality standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements.
• Some districts are using their own locally developed standards after completing a crosswalk of their standards to the state’s quality standards and elements. These districts must provide assurances that they are meeting all additional requirements of SB 10-191.
Principal Evaluations50% Student Academic Growth
50% Professional Practice
Quality Standards I-VI:I. Strategic leadershipII. Instructional leadershipIII. School culture/equity leadershipIV. HR leadershipV. Managerial leadershipVI. External development leadership
Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement.
Quality Standard VII:VII. Leadership around student academic growth
Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth.
Teacher Evaluations50% Professional Practice
50% Student Academic Growth
Quality Standards I-V:I. Mastery of contentII. Establish learning environmentIII. Facilitate learningIV. Reflect on practiceV. Demonstrate leadership
Evaluated using: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include additional measures.
Quality Standard VI:VI. Responsibility for student academic growth
Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data.
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
Rubric Alignment
Quality Standard
Elements Aligned to Standard
Professional Practices
Quality Standard II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of students.
Not Evident Partially Proficient Proficient(Meets State Standard) Accomplished Exemplary
Element c: Teachers engage students as individuals with unique interests and strengths.
The teacher: Has low-level expectations for
some students. Uses data for instructional
decision making on an infrequent basis.
The teacher: Monitors students for
level of participation. Encourages students to
share their interests. Challenges students to
expand and enhance their learning.
. . . andThe teacher: Asks difficult questions
of all students. Scaffolds questions. Gives wait time
equitably. Flexibly Groups
students. Assumes that all
students will meet or exceed expectations.
Modifies instruction to assure that all students: Understand what is
expected of them. Are challenged to meet
or exceed expectations. Participate in
classroom activities with a high level of frequency and quality.
Take responsibility for their work.
Have the opportunity to build on their interests and strengths.
. . . andStudents: Actively participate in
all classroom activities. Monitor their own
performance for frequency of participation.
Seek opportunities to respond to difficult questions.
. . . andStudents: Select challenging
content and activities when given the choice in order to stretch their skills and abilities.
Encourage fellow students to participate and challenge themselves.
Quality Standard
Element that
aligns with
standard
Rating levels
Professional Practices
Components of the Educator Rubrics
Standard I: Principals Demonstrate Strategic Leadership
Not Evident Partially Proficient Proficient Accomplished Exemplarya. School Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals: Principals develop the vision, mission, values, beliefs and goals of the school, collaboratively determining the processes used
to establish these attributes, and facilitating their integration into the life of the school community.
Vision, mission, values, beliefs and goals of school are: Not evident or familiar
to staff and other stakeholders.
Developed by school administrators working in relative isolation.
Not integrated into the life of the school community.
Vision, mission, values, beliefs and strategic goals of school are: Developed through a
collaborative process with staff and other stakeholder groups.
Publicly available at the school.
Part of routine school communications with staff and other stakeholders.
Routinely updated.
. . . andEstablishes strategic goals for students and staff that are: Focused on student
achievement. Based on the analysis of
multiple sources of information.
Aligned with district priorities.
Measurable. Rigorous. Concrete.
. . . and Staff incorporate
identified strategies in their instructional plans to assure that students achieve expected outcomes.
. . . and Staff and other
stakeholders take leadership roles in updating the school’s vision, mission, and strategic goals.
Staff members assume responsibility for implementing the school’s vision, mission, and strategic goals.
Not Evident describes practices of a principal who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them.
The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what principals do on a day-to-day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels.
The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the outcomes of the principal’s practices, including expectations for staff, students, parents and community members, as a result of practices exhibited under rating levels 2 and 3.
Principal and Teacher Performance Evaluation Ratings
After CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix, the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.
Highly Effective
Effective
Partially Effective
Ineffective
PerformanceRating Levels
Elements of the Standard
Professional Practices
Teacher Quality Standards
Evaluator Comments
Summary of Ratings for the Standard
Evidence Provided by Artifacts
Teacher’s Response to Evaluation
Examples of Artifacts
= Observable in
Classroom
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
Pilot PeriodIs used to develop, identify and/or test the following:• Principal and teacher rubrics• Measures of student academic growth• Method to collect teacher input for principal evaluations• Method to collect student and family perception data • Method to aggregate measures and assign final
evaluation ratings• CDE monitoring methods
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
Year One 2011-12 Development
and Beta Testing
• CDE ACTIVITIES• Develop State Model
Systems for teachers and principals
• Beta-testing of rubrics and tools
• Develop technical guidelines on Professional Practices and Student Growth
• Provide differentiated support for districts
• Populate and launch online Resource Bank
• Develop state data collection and monitoring system
• Develop tools for district implementation of system
Year Two 2012-13 Pilot and Rollout
• CDE ACTIVITIES• Usability study of
rubrics• Support pilot
districts through resources, training, tools, etc.
• Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned
• Analyze pilot district data and make adjustments as needed
• Train ALL non-pilot districts that are using the state model
• Make Recommendations on other licensed personnel (OLP) to State Board of Education (SBE)
Year Three 2013-14 Pilot and
Rollout
• CDE ACTIVITIES• Statewide
assistance on rollout of evaluation systems
• Develop evaluation system for other licensed personnel
• Support all districts through resources, trainings, tools, etc.
• Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned
• Analyze state data and make adjustments to the system as needed
• Validate teacher and principal rubrics
• Develop criteria for evaluation training courses for approval by CDE
Year Four 2014-15 Full Statewide Implementation
• CDE ACTIVITIES• Finalize statewide
implementation of teacher/principal systems
• Pilot OLP rubrics• Continue support to
districts via resources and training
• Ensure there are evaluator training courses throughout the state
• Analyze data and make adjustments as needed
• Make recommendations to SBE this year and all following years for Continuous Improvement
Timeline of Implementation
Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation
System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges
SEA Successes and ChallengesSuccesses• Focus on intent (rather
than compliance)• Conversations about
teaching and learning• Flexibility• Collaboration with
associations • Coordination with BOCES
to train regions• 27 Colorado pilot districts
Challenges• Variance in capacity at
local level• Change management
(time burden high)• Inter-rater agreement
across state system users• Measuring student
learning• Attributing student
learning
LEA Successes and ChallengesSuccesses• Train the Trainer model
– Administrative team– Faculty
• Previous improvement work is complementary
Challenges• Time• Availability of resources
in time to use with staff• Comprehensiveness and
length of new evaluation• System and process
unknowns
Contact Information
• Katy [email protected]
• Toby [email protected]
• Michael [email protected]
• Britt [email protected]
• Jean Williams [email protected]
• Dawn Paré[email protected]
• Courtney [email protected]
• Amy Skinner [email protected]
• Katie [email protected]
For more information, please visit: www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
February 12, 2013 36
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Project Goal
• To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth.
The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.
37
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
38
How Did We Get Here?
• June 30, 2012, Act 82, Section 1123 of the PublicSchool Code was passed.
• Permitted use of student achievement data to be usedas part of the teacher evaluation system.
• Established the components and weighting to be included in the new rating tool.
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
School Building Data, 15%
Teacher Specific Data, 15%
Elective Data, 20%
Observation/ Evidence,
50%
Observation/EvidenceEffective 2013-2014 SYDanielson Framework Do-mainsPlanning and PreparationClassroom EnvironmentInstructionProfessional Responsibilities
School Building DataEffective 2013-2014 SYIndicators of Academic AchievementIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, All StudentsIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, SubgroupsAcademic Growth PVAASOther Academic IndicatorsCredit for Advanced Achievement
Teacher Specific DataEffective 2016-2017 SYPVAAS / Growth 3 Year Rolling Average2013-2014 SY2014-2015 SY2015-2016 SYOther data as provided in Act 82
Elective Data/SLOsOptional 2013-2014 SYEffective 2014-2015 SYDistrict Designed Measures and Examina-tionsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local Re-quirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Re-quirements
Teacher Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012
39
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Building Level Data• PA has developed a School Performance Profile for
each school in PA LEAs.• Based upon multiple data sources, all of which
have been required by PDE in the past – no new reports.
• Includes indicators of Academic Achievement, Closing the Achievement Gap, Academic Growth, and other academic indicators.
• Each school receives a score based on these factors and their weighting.
40
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Teacher Specific Data
• PVAAS data• 3-year rolling average to reduce “noise”
41
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Building Level Data, 15%
Observation/ Evidence,
50%
Observation/EvidenceEffective 2013-2014Danielson Framework Do-mainsPlanning and PreparationClassroom EnvironmentInstructionProfessional Responsibilities
Building Level DataEffective 2013-2014 SYIndicators of Academic AchievementIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, All StudentsIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, Sub-groupsAcademic Growth PVAASOther Academic IndicatorsCredit for Advanced Achievement
Elective Data/SLOsPiloting 2013-2014 SYEffective 2014-2015 SYDistrict Designed Measures and Examina-tionsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local Re-quirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Re-quirements
Elective Data, 35%
42
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
43
Non-Teaching Professional Employees:
Who Are They?• Dental Hygienist• Elementary/Secondary School Counselors• Home and School Visitors• Instructional Technology Specialist• School Nurse• School Psychologist
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Observa-tion/ Evi-
dence 80%
Student Perfor-mance 20%
Observation/EvidenceDanielson Framework Domains1. Planning and Preparation2. Educational Environment3. Delivery of Service 4. Professional Development
Student Performance of All Students in the School Building in which the Nonteaching Professional Employee is Employed District Designed Measures and ExaminationsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local RequirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements
Non Teaching Professional Employee Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012
Effective 2014-2015 SY
44
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
Challenges
• Collecting accurate data from LEAs
• Building an accurate Student/Teacher/Course linkage system.
45
Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us
Measuring Educator Effectiveness
www.education.state.pa.us
Select Educator Effectiveness Quick Link
Educator Effectiveness – The
Other HalfAn LEA Data Manager
Perspective
NCES Forum, February 2013Linda Rocks, Bossier Parish Schools
Remember When… Compliance Filling in cells in grant templates FOIA requests
Data Use
OMG
Educator Evaluation
www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/teaching
Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass
Inaugural YearInception Pilot
Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass
Inaugural Year
Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass
CVR & VAM
HCIS
Inaugural Year
State Program/Policy
Office
State Program/Policy
OfficeState Data
Division
Data Pipeline…Then & Now
LEA Data Managers
LEA Administration
LEA Administration
What they did well Similar design for both CVR & HCIS Single security login for both CVR & HCIS Created state network support teams by
region Created local admin roles for both CVR &
HCIS
Where it could improve Involvement of SEA/LEA data managers Network support team member with data
background Files…without Educator ID
Data Use
OMGIKR