2Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectivenessM-STAR’s Goal: To improve teacher practice andpositively impact student learningM-STAR:provides a reliable and valid process based on common standards,includes multiple measures,indentifies areas of strength and challenge, andhelps track educational progress to improve the performance of teachers.
3The National Perspective: Research and ReportsResearch confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students’ achievement.Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways:Lack sufficient connection to goals for student learning and growthDo not provide educators with adequate feedback for improvementFail to differentiate educator effectivenessTalking Points:In the 2009 McKinsey Education report, “Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead,” the central importance of good teaching and school leadership in student outcomes is widely acknowledged.Over a 3 year period, learning with a high-performing teacher instead of a low-performing teacher can make a 53-percentile difference for two students who start at the same achievement level.Replacing an average principal with an outstanding principal in an average school can increase student achievement by over 20 percentile points.
4Trends in Teacher Evaluation Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluationFocus on models and measures that help teachers/schools/districts improve performancePolicy is way ahead of the research in teacher evaluation measures and models
5U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachers Method for determining and identifying effective andhighly effective teachers:Must include multiple measuresEffectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growthSupplemental measures may include multiple observation based instrumentsTalking Points:One of the most important things school systems can do to promote student achievement is to ensure that all students have effective teachers.Over the years, research has shown that many of our traditional methods of ensuring teacher effectiveness, such as requiring particular credentials, experience, or education, are not strongly related to teachers’ effectiveness in promoting achievement. In response, policymakers are looking at alternative measures of teacher effectiveness.
6Defining Teacher Quality “Highly qualified teacher” status:Bachelor’s degreeFull state certificationDemonstrated knowledge of assigned subject(s)“Highly effective teacher” status:Student academic growthOther measures
7Defining Teacher Quality Stakeholder engagementMississippi Teachers of the YearState Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC)Meetings with Teachers and PrincipalsTeacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers)Teacher OrganizationsMississippi Association of School SuperintendentsContract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to streamline and redesign instrument
8Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) in Mississippi Five Year Federal GrantAwarded September 2010$ 10.7 Million Award for MSServes 10 schools in 7 districtsMulti-strategy approach to school improvementHere are the basics of the MS TIF grant.
9Five TIF Project Components for Multiple StrategiesFive TIF Project Components forSchool ImprovementEducator EvaluationStudent Growth DataProfessional DevelopmentCareer Ladders for TeachersPerformance Based CompensationTIF proposes that there are multiple strategies for school improvement, not just financial incentives. Even though financial incentives gets the most publicity, it is not the magic bullet.
10DOMAINS, STANDARDS, PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND RATINGS M-STARDOMAINS, STANDARDS, PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND RATINGS
11M-STAR Why a standardized process? Increases the validity of the evaluation and the reliability of the evaluation instrumentsEnsures teachers are evaluated fairly, using consistent criteriaEnsures that scores are based on evidence, not on personal judgment or biasStrengthens evaluative decisionsExplain:“M-STAR will ensure that teachers are being evaluated fairly. It will also increase the reliability and the validity of the performance level.”
12How is M-STAR Different? Traditional ObservationsEvidence-Based ObservationsSingle time point for classroom observationMultiple time points for classroom observationUse of “checklist” tools (strength/weakness, yes/no)Use of rubrics that define instructional improvement on a continuumHigh performance ratings given to almost all teachersVariations in performance ratings among teachersDoes not include student outcomesLinks teacher effectiveness to student performance
13Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) Five domains (weighted equally)PlanningAssessmentInstructionLearning EnvironmentProfessional Responsibilities20 StandardsFour levels of effectiveness:UnsatisfactoryEmergingEffectiveDistinguished
14Professional Practice: 50% A teacher’s summative rating is based on two components: Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.Professional Practice: 50%M-STAR: 30%2 formal observations5 informal observations (walkthroughs)Professional Growth Goals: 20%Self-evaluate, receive feedback, and progress toward goalsStudent Outcomes: 50%Individual GrowthState tested areasORStudent Learning ObjectivesNon-tested areasANDSchool-wide GrowthTested and Non-testedExplain that these percentages are tentative.
15Formal Observation Cycle Review lesson plan,understand context,& ask clarifying questionsKey Questions:What are students learning?What is the evidence of this learning?Pre-Observation Conference1-2 days prior to observationObservationPost-Observation ConferenceWithin 1 week of observationFollow up WalkthroughWithin 2 weeks of post-observation conferenceThis slide diagrams the Formal Observation Cycle.Explain:“This slide diagrams the Formal Observation Cycle. Notice the four steps of the cycle including the timeline and also the importance of feedback.”Effective, concrete feedback &next steps are critical.Observe feedbackin action
16Scoring ProcessTeachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard4 points3 points2 points1 pointWithin each domain, the points will be averaged.The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating.Explain:“For each standard, teachers will receive a rating. The teacher will receive 4 points for distinguished, 3 points for effective, 2 points for emerging, and 1 point for unsatisfactory. The points are averaged within each domain. The averages will be weighted equally to get a summative rating.”Have participants refer to pages of the process manual as you proceed through the scoring slides.
17M-STAR RatingsA teacher’s performance will be appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale:Level 4 Distinguished: indicates that the teacher’s performance consistently exceeds expectations.Level 3 Effective: indicates that the teacher’s performance meets expectations.Level 2 Emerging: indicates that the teacher’s performance inconsistently meets expectations.Level 1 Unsatisfactory: indicates that the teacher’s performance does not meet expectations.
18Example: Summative Observation Rating DomainDomain ScoreWeightWeighted RatingI: Planning2.75x.55II: Assessment4.80III: Instruction2.5.50IV: Learning Environment3.5x.70V: Professional ResponsibilitiesSummative Classroom Observation Rating3.05Explain:“The evaluator would multiply each domain score by .20 in order to obtain a weighted rating. Each domain counts 1/5 of the overall summative classroom observation rating.”( )5
19Implementation Timeline MS Teacher Evaluation SystemImplementation TimelinePilot Implementation (TIF) Statewide Training on New System July 2012 – July 2013 Field Test the System Full Implementation
20M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE TeachersClear expectations for both teachers and principalsSpecific, timely feedbackPrincipal awareness of what will occur in the classroomTeacher/principal communicationNecessity of teacher preparationFocus on teacher’s strengths and weaknessesTeacher self-reflectionPrior identification of potential problemsPrincipalsClear expectations for both teachers and principalsOpportunity for open dialogueInformation on what administrators want to observeEasing of teachers’ anxietiesRelationship building with teachersOpportunity for knowledge gatheringAlerting of principals to special circumstances
21M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE TeachersImmediate, timely feedbackDialogue on strengths and areas of improvementOpportunity for professional development and improvement plansSelf-reflectionTeacher explanations of classroom activities (planned and unplanned)PrincipalsFeedback on strengths and areas of challengesTeacher reflectionOpen dialogueProvision of accommodations and recommendations for improvementRelationship buildingTeacher input regarding professional development needsTime for teacher/administration collaborationOpportunity for coaching and professional learning