# B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability June.

## Presentation on theme: "B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability June."— Presentation transcript:

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Calculating The Overall Rating Office of Achievement and Accountability June 4, 2014 1

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Evaluation Update Given the transition in state assessments, recent legislation (i.e. former Senate Bill 676) prohibits the use of state assessments for teacher and principal evaluation until 2016-17. City Schools will not use student growth measures in the 2013-14 teacher evaluation that will be used for compensation because all of the measures we planned to use include state assessment data. Teachers will experience the full evaluation (i.e. professional practice and student growth measures) through the use of a formative report for developmental purposes. 2

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation* 3 *For 2013-14, the teacher annual evaluation used for compensation includes professional practice measures with all evaluation measures (professional practice & student growth) being provided for formative purposes.

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Calculating the Scoring Ranges (Cut Scores) As an example, to set the “Highly Effective” scoring range you would start with 3.5 because 3.5 rounds up to 4, which is the highest score available using the Instructional Framework rubric. Then you would multiply by 25 to put the score on a 100-point scale. Then you would multiply by.85 to assign the weight of 85% for classroom observations.  Step 1: 3.5 x 25 = 87.5  Step 2: 87.5 x.85 = 74.375 4

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Revised 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Model Then you would select the lowest score that would yield a “Highly Effective” rating on the Professional Expectations Measure (80 points) Multiply by.15 to assign the weight of 15% for professional expectations.  Step 4: 80 *.15 = 12 Add it to the classroom observations number to get the starting value for the “Highly Effective” range.  Step 5: 74.375 + 12 = 86.375 We would round down to 86 to set the starting value for “Highly Effective” 5 Professional Expectations RatingScore Range Highly Effective80 - 100 points Effective60 – 79 points Developing45 – 59 points IneffectiveLess than 45 points

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS 2013-14 Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Score Ranges (Cut Scores) 1 The score ranges for the classroom observations are based on the following rounded values: 4.0 for “Highly Effective,” 3.0 for “Effective,” 2.0 for “Developing” and 1.0 for “Ineffective.” Final RatingOverall Score Range 1 Highly Effective86 and above Effective72 – 85 Developing55 - 71 Ineffective54 and below 6

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Determining the Evaluation Rating Step 1: Put all components on the same scale so you can compare apples-to-apples Step 2: Assign weights to each component Step 3: Add all components together Step 4: Determine the rating based on the composite score 7

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Start with the Raw Scores 8 Effectiveness MeasureTeacher’s Raw ScoreExplanation Classroom Observations (Instructional Framework) 3.1Average of this teacher’s formal observation ratings on a scale of 1 - 4 Professional Expectations80This teacher’s professional expectations score is already on a 100-point scale

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 1: Compare Apples to Apples Evaluation Measure ScoreMultiplierScaled ScoreExplanation Classroom Observation 3.12577.5Because of the 1-4 scale of the Instructional Framework and rubric, a multiplier of 25 is used to place the score on a 100-point scale Professional Expectations 80None80Already on 100-point Scale 9 3.1 X 25 = 77.5

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 2: Assign Weights 10 Evaluation Measure Scaled Score WeightWeighted ScoreExplanation Classroom Observation 77.585%65.88Because of the 1-4 scale of the Instructional Framework and rubric, a multiplier of 25 is used to place the score on a 100- point scale Professional Expectations 8015%12Already on 100-point Scale 77.5 x.85 = 65.875, round to 65.88 80 x.15= 12

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 3: Add All Components Together 11 Effectiveness MeasureWeighted Score Classroom Observation 65.88 + Professional Expectations 12 = Overall Weighted Score 77.88 (round to 78)

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Step 4: Determine the Rating 12 Final RatingOverall Score Range Highly Effective 86 and above Effective 72 – 85 Developing 55 - 71 Ineffective 54 and below In this example, the overall weighted score of 78 would place this teacher in the “Effective” range.

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Evaluation Outcomes 13 The new evaluation includes 4 overall performance ratings instead of 3: Composite evaluation ratings will still be used to determine achievement units. PBES Performance Ratings Proficient Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation Performance Ratings Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective Performance RatingsAchievement Units Highly Effective Effective Developing Ineffective 12 AUs 9 AUs 3 AUs 0 AUs

B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS Evaluation Outcomes Cont. The composite evaluation rating, as well as the ratings on any of the measures, will be used to determine professional development opportunities for teachers to target strengths and weaknesses. Performance improvement plans can still be written based on the composite evaluation rating, any single evaluation component, or for any reason. They do not have a direct impact on compensation. 14