DRAFT: Teacher Growth and Evaluation Default Model Thursday, November 15 th, 2012 Rose Hermodson, Greg Keith, and Tyler Livingston “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

Vision A teacher growth and evaluation system Embeds support and professional learning throughout the system Includes multiple measures of practice and effectiveness Is transparent, sustainable, consistent, and sufficiently flexible Results in increased student learning and success education.state.mn.us 2

What is represented in this DRAFT DRAFT Subgroup recommendations. Subgroup chair suggestions, revisions. Work group conversations and feedback. Conversations around the state & nation. Our study of educator effectiveness. Puzzle-together your work. education.state.mn.us 3

Handbooks, guidance documents, forms, implementation concerns. Components in ongoing development: –Performance Standards for “non-graded” subjects? –The default Value-Added model –Individual Growth and Development Plan –Others Projected changes to statute What is NOT represented in this DRAFT education.state.mn.us 4

5 November 15 th Overview entire draft model Welcome clarifying questions around the draft today. Seek to understand what is here before offering feedback. Use notesheet to gather thoughts around draft. November 28 th Solicit feedback on the draft model Subgroups: Mixed groups: Whole Group: Interim  Model revisions published electronically (wiki? ?). December 13 th Approval of entire model Raise revision points large group. Process for Draft Review

MDE – Timely revisions, receive feedback, facilitate work group. Chairs and subgroup chairs – be accessible, facilitate small group review. Work Group – remain engaged, offer solutions, make final decisions. Support and guests – consult and offer expertise as requested. Roles During Model Revision/Approval education.state.mn.us 6

7 Visual capturing entire model and the relationship of components. Model Overview

education.state.mn.us 8 Must define before we measure; must measure in order to weigh. Decision point: Weights of each component. Definition, Measurement, Weight

Performance Standards Domains and Indicators Rubric & Evidence Performance Rating Categories and Definitions education.state.mn.us 9

Roles of Summative Evaluator and Peer Reviewer(s) Describes role of Summative Evaluator Peer Reviewer Discussion Point: Non-probationary education.state.mn.us 10

Three-Year Cycle Activities that occur annually. Activities that occur in the summative year. education.state.mn.us 11

Three-Year Cycle Activities: Detailed Elaborates on activities and roles occurring during the three-year cycle education.state.mn.us 12

Self-Assessment and Peer Review Sample form for end-of-year conference between teacher and peer reviewer(s). education.state.mn.us 13

education.state.mn.us 14 Evaluator’s role Teacher’s ownership –Determining PoCs –Grounded in IGDP –Flexible and role specific Significant source of feedback and evidence throughout cycle. Points of Contact (PoC)

Points of Contact: Documentation What is the evidence? Teacher practice Student impact –Academic Outcomes –Student Engagement Strength and growth feedback. education.state.mn.us 15

Professional Judgment Acknowledge the role of professional judgment. education.state.mn.us 16

Performance Standards Rating How to arrive at a summative component rating for “Teacher Practice” education.state.mn.us 17

18 education.state.mn.us Principals and Foundations

19 education.state.mn.us Delineates VA- available teachers from others. Includes some decision points for the subgroup and/or workgroup. Student Learning and Achievement Component: Value-Added Data

Student Learning and Achievement Component: Student Learning Goals DRAFT guide for SLG process. Three types of SLG –Student Achievement –Targeted Need –Shared Performance education.state.mn.us 20

Student Learning and Achievement: Performance Rating Value-Added Teachers In development Depends on the model SLG Process Described in guide. education.state.mn.us 21

education.state.mn.us 22 Principals and Foundations

Student Engagement Definition and context graphic. education.state.mn.us 23

Student Engagement Component Rating Guidelines for arriving at a component rating for Student Engagement. education.state.mn.us 24

education.state.mn.us 25 Principals and Foundations

In process by PD subcommittee. Driver of the three year review cycle. –Identifies growth goals based on summative, peer reviews, and self-assessment. –Identifies the summative evaluator and the peer reviewer(s). Updated annually. Individual Growth and Development Plan education.state.mn.us 26

Teacher Assistance Track From the PD subcommittee education.state.mn.us 27