Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012 1. 2 Today’s meeting Recap progress to date Overview of where PEAC is headed Discussion of evaluation components Next.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012 1. 2 Today’s meeting Recap progress to date Overview of where PEAC is headed Discussion of evaluation components Next."— Presentation transcript:

1 Connecticut PEAC meeting

2 2 Today’s meeting Recap progress to date Overview of where PEAC is headed Discussion of evaluation components Next steps

3 PEAC’s decisions thus far  Principles for Teacher Evaluation Guidelines  State best practices (discussed at Dec 20 PEAC meeting)  Agreement on Connecticut’s design approach – minimum requirements and state model 3

4 PEAC Principles for Evaluation Guidelines  Primary purpose of evaluation is to strengthen individual and collective practices in order to improve student learning...  Evaluation systems should…include multiple indicators of student academic growth and development while taking into account measurable student characteristics…  Evaluation systems should be standards-based using the Common Core of Teaching, state adopted leadership standards, etc.  When weaknesses are identified, the educator should seek resources and support, including peer assistance and resource opportunities and support provided by the district…  Local district evaluation plans should be developed collaboratively by educators and administrators… 4

5 Principles for Evaluation Guidelines (cont.)  Professional learning plans should reflect the needs of individuals and groups of educators identified through the evaluation process…  Evaluation systems should include opportunities for formative, summative and self-evaluation.  Districts should provide regular and ongoing professional learning opportunities and allocate time for educators and evaluators to collaborate to promote effective implementation of the evaluation plan.  Evaluation plans should include a process for resolving disputes in cases in which the educator and evaluator disagree on goal-setting, formative or summative evaluation, and/or the improvement plan.  Districts should review and revise their evaluation plans at least every five years, using current research and best practice. 5

6 State best practices include:  4 rating levels  Annual reviews for all teachers and administrators  Multiple indicators of student learning that are a significant part of teacher and administrator evaluations  Evaluations that provide teachers and administrators with useful feedback & results linked to professional development  Strong training for evaluators  A statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets regularly to provide implementation guidance  Pilot process or staggered implementation 6

7 Minimum requirements and state model  Agreement on a system design approach – establish minimum requirements for districts and design a state evaluation model → State will determine minimum requirements for district teacher and administrator evaluation systems → Districts will be permitted to develop evaluation systems, subject to minimum requirements, and with capacity support and review from the State Department of Education → State will develop model teacher and administrator systems that districts may adopt as desired → Districts that cannot come to agreement or do not establish systems by a state-determined deadline will use the state model 7

8 A possible roadmap moving forward  Agreement on general design approach - Completed 12/20  Determine minimum criteria and process requirements - January → What component types will be permitted? → What minimum weights for each component type will be required? → Will the minimum requirements specify processes (e.g., # of observations, who conducts observations, who trains evaluators)?  Determine implementation requirements - February → When must districts submit systems to state for feedback & approval? → When will the state model go in effect for districts without local systems? → What training requirements for evaluators should be specified? → Should the state consider a pilot program? → Form an “implementation working group” to address these questions? 8 -- continued on next slide --

9 A possible roadmap moving forward (cont.)  Assist in development of model for teachers, administrators, & pupil services staff – February/March → Components → Weighting → Working groups  Guidance on process for how the state models will work – Feb/Mar → What processes will be prescribed? (who conducts observations, are conferences required, differences based on experience and effectiveness ratings, etc.) → What tools are needed? (goal setting materials, scoring rubrics, etc.)  Determine review process for draft state models – April/May → State reviews draft teacher, principal, & pupil service models → Collect educator feedback on state models → How could feedback from pilot districts be used to improve systems? → NOTE: State Board iterative feedback and adoption process 9

10 JanuaryFebuaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly Draft Timeline 10 April/May - Educator feedback on state models February - Working groups convene and begin developing state models & implementation plans March/April - review of draft state models January – State determines minimum requirements for district systems July - Due date for state model development and adoption

11 Goal for today: recommended components  Component types will become the backbone of minimum guidelines for districts and the eventual state models  Today, PEAC will discuss evaluation components and consider what teacher systems should include  We will also preview principal components today, but are adding additional expertise for the next meeting 11

12 General component types for teachers  Several types of components are common in teacher evaluation systems: → Observations of teacher practice → Indicators of professional responsibility → Peer feedback → Student feedback → Parent feedback → Multiple indicators of student learning 12 Source: Education First analysis

13 Observations of teacher practice  Observations of classroom instruction are a near-universal component of evaluation systems  Observations use rubrics to gauge alignment of instruction to professional teaching standards → Many states and districts adopt rubrics based on one or more national frameworks, such as Charlotte Danielson or Robert Marzano → Other states, like Colorado, develop their own standards  Other details pertaining to observations, including: → Use of a particular rubric aligned with the CT Teaching Standards → Number of observations each year, and variations for subgroups → Timing and scheduling of observations → Parties responsible for observations (principals and master teachers) → Requirements for pre- and/or post-observation conferences → Requirements for support and PD that result from evaluations 13 Source: Education First analysis; State of the States. NCTQ. (2010).; Educator Quality for the 21 st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011)

14 Principles for teacher practice observations  State to ensure that different teacher observation rubrics that are used are aligned to Connecticut’s teacher standards  (1) a minimum number of observations, (2) who conducts observations, and (3) details on conferences  A state teacher model working group to customize a model observation rubric  Evaluator training to focus on that one observation rubric 14

15 Indicators of professional responsibility  These indicators capture a teacher’s contribution to the school culture  Example – Rhode Island educators are rated on four core Professional Responsibilities categories: 1. Collaborate and Contribute to the School Community 2. Believe in and Advocate for Students 3. Create a Culture of Respect 4. Exercise Professional Judgment and Development  Teachers in Washington, DC Public Schools are scored on a rubric of five aspects of community involvement and are given a core professionalism rating that considers items such as unexcused absences 15 Source: Education First analysis; The Rhode Island Model: Teacher Guidebook Rhode Island Department of Education. (2011); “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook ” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools

16 Peer feedback  Teachers in some schools complete surveys on their peers’ core values and contributions to the mission of the school  Districts will be permitted to design and include peer review systems in Colorado  “Peer Validation” is used in New Haven to confirm scores for teachers on the low and high ends of the rating scale 16 Source: Education First analysis; “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook ” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools; New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010)

17 Parent and student feedback  Districts may elect to use surveys to measure parent and student perception in Colorado  Gates Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study has shown that certain student survey responses are highly predictive of strong student outcomes  As part of the goal setting process in Ohio, teachers may be asked to analyze results from student and parent surveys 17 Source: Education First analysis; Colorado State Board of Education Rules adopted November 2011; Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Model Packet draft 7/13/11

18 Multiple indicators of student learning  A variety of items are used as indicators of student learning → Best practice dictates incorporating multiple indicators of growth into the student learning component → Multiple indicators ensure effective evaluations for all teachers, not just those in select subjects and grades  Effective systems use multiple indicators that are fair, valid, reliable and useful → No single indicator is completely able to account for student learning or a teacher’s unique contribution → Together, multiple indicators capture a range of teaching behaviors 18 Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21 st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

19 Characteristics of strong student learning indicators  Fair indicators apply to educators uniformly, are free of bias, and are transparent to those being evaluated  Valid indicators are instruments that are appropriate to measure what they purport to measure  Reliable indicators reveal an accurate representation of what is being assessed, and these results are consistent and repeatable  Useful indicators result in relevant feedback to educators, and should inform professional development plans as well as human resource decisions 19 Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21 st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

20 Selecting multiple indicators of student learning  In selecting multiple indicators, states commonly require a mix of indicators suitable for comparing student learning across the state and indicators developed locally (TN, NY)  Many states include safeguards for teachers around student characteristics, attendance, and mobility (like in the CT legislation) to ensure consistent student engagement over a meaningful period of time  Illinois divides indicator types (see Appendix) into three categories and requires use of at least two indicators 20 Source: Education First analysis; Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

21 Examples of student learning indicators Student learning indicatorPurpose of indicator Student Learning Objectives To determine student progress based on outcomes and objectives determined by the teacher often in conjunction with the principal or other school administrator Periodic Diagnostic ResultsTo evaluate progress based on an established timeline Teacher Developed Assessment Results To assess student progress on pre-determined goals Portfolios of Student WorkTo evaluate a selection of student work, scored using rubrics Standardized Assessment Outcomes To compare students to each other in the same class, school, district and/or statewide, at one point in time Individually-Attributed Growth To evaluate a teacher’s contribution to academic progress by their assigned students between two points in time Collectively-Attributed Growth To evaluate a group of educators’ contribution to academic progress by the group’s students between two points in time Progress with the curriculum coupled with evidence of student mastery of curriculum To determine if teacher and students are on-task and up to speed 21 Source: Measuring student growth: At a glance. The Center for Public Education. (2007); Student Performance Assessment in Diversified Teacher Compensation Systems. Education Commission of the States. (2007); 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009)

22 Components for principals  Similar categories, similar emphases but schoolwide  Additional support for the process of establishing guidelines for principal evaluations is on the way  New Leaders for New Schools suggests evaluations of principals should focus on their success increasing student learning and teacher effectiveness, with assessment of demonstration of key leadership actions as well  Districts in Colorado will be required to establish evaluations that balance student academic growth with professional practice → Practice will by evaluated by gauging teacher input, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher improvement 22 Source: Evaluating Principals: Balancing accountability with professional growth. New Leaders for New Schools; Power Point overview of Colorado’s State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

23 Discussion of teacher evaluation components  Are there any component types not discussed today that you would like to add for our consideration?  Which component types would you like to recommend districts include in their systems?  We’ll discuss requiring certain components and minimum weights at our next meeting 23

24 Next steps  Discuss the value placed on different components (weights)  Consider additional minimum guidelines on process and implementation, including: → Observation rubrics → Permitted and/or required student learning indicator sources → Evaluator training → Implementation timelines and pilot question  Launch implementation and state model working groups  Reschedule the next meeting (no longer Jan 24) 24

25 Contact Information  John Luczak → →  Adam Petkun → →

26 26 Appendix: Evaluation component examples

27 50% Professional Practice 50% Student Academic Growth Minimum requirements for teacher evaluations in Colorado districts 27 Quality Standards I-V: I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on practice V. Demonstrate leadership Quality Standards I-V: I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on practice V. Demonstrate leadership Quality Standard VI: VI. Responsibility for student academic growth 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. 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. Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

28 Minimum requirements for principal evaluations in Colorado districts 28 Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011) Quality Standards I-VI: I. Strategic leadership II. Instructional leadership III. School culture/equity leadership IV. HR leadership V. Managerial leadership VI. External development leadership Quality Standards I-VI: I. Strategic leadership II. Instructional leadership III. School culture/equity leadership IV. HR leadership V. Managerial leadership VI. 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 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. 50% Student Academic Growth 50% Professional Practice

29 Rhode Island educator evaluation model – Key components  When fully implemented in the school year, Rhode Island’s system will consist of the following components: 29 ComponentMeasure Teacher Professional Practice and Professional Responsibility Measures Teacher Professional Practice Competency on a rubric, judged through observations and other evidence collected by the evaluator Teacher Professional Responsibilities Competency on a rubric, judged through observations and other evidence collected by the evaluator Measures of Student Learning Student Learning Objectives Progress toward targets based on objectives selected with teachers in their subject and school, in collaboration with evaluators Rhode Island Growth Model Classroom-level rating for ELA and math teachers in grades 3 through 7, using Student Growth Percentiles similar to the Colorado Growth Model calculation SOURCE: The Rhode Island Model: Guide to Evaluating Building Administrators and Teachers,

30 Example of assessment categorization in Illinois 30 Image Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

31 Illinois draft evaluation default model – Key components  Formal and informal observations  Pre-observation meeting to review lesson plan  Post-observation meeting with self-reflection and evaluator feedback, with relevant evidence  “Demonstrable change in a student’s learning between two or more points in time” → Requires use of at least two indicators → Requires mix of indicator types (see last slide)  At least one Type III assessment  And at least one Type I or Type II (not ISAT or PSAE)  Or two Type III assessments 31 Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

32 New Haven Public Schools – Key components  At the beginning of each year, teachers meet with their Instructional Manager (IM) to set goals in each category of the evaluation  Teachers are rated on a 1-5 scale for each component at the end of each year 32 ComponentMeasure Student Learning Outcomes Growth in student learning on assessments selected with IM, and using district assessments when available Teacher Instructional Practice IM observations of teacher performance on Practice Performance Continuum in domains of Planning & Preparation, Classroom Practice and Reflection Teacher Professional Values IM observations of teacher behavior such as professionalism, collegiality and high expectations for students SOURCE: New Haven Public Schools

33 Multiple measures in New Haven (cont.) - Examples from selected teacher group types 33 Source: New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010) Teachers by Subject/Grade Growth measures used in Measures to be used in the long-term General Ed (including Bilingual) (K-3) Teacher and IM selected (2+) District-wide assessment aligned to guiding principles Portfolio-based assessment/21st Century Competencies Teacher and IM selected (as needed) English, Math, Science (7-8) Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Teacher and IM selected (1+) CMT District-wide assessment aligned to guiding principles Portfolio-based assessment/21st Century Competencies Teacher and IM selected (as needed) Specials/ Electives (e.g., Art, PE, Music, Tech Ed) (K- 12) Teacher and IM selected (2+) Portfolio-based assessment/21st Century Competencies Teacher and IM selected (as needed)


Download ppt "Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012 1. 2 Today’s meeting Recap progress to date Overview of where PEAC is headed Discussion of evaluation components Next."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google