NIET Teacher Evaluation Process As indicated on the Administrator Letter, please feel free to use some of the literature connections we suggested. This is a good way to build a common understanding for what you are doing and where you are going. © 2011 National Institute for Excellence in Teaching. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate without permission.

TEAM Evaluation Multiple Measures

Changes to Evaluation Measures (HB 150/SB 156) Weight of growth for teachers in non-tested grades/subjects Teachers who do not generate an individual growth score will continue to use their preselected school-wide growth score for the growth component of their overall level of effectiveness. The revised weighting is below: o Growth: 25% o    Observation: 60% o    Achievement: 15% Special education students will now be included in the calculation of individual growth scores.

Overview of Evaluation Process—Professional Teachers This is meant as a quick overview of the process. As teachers have questions about this, have them use a parking lot put up in the room so you can address their concerns without taking up too much time during this training.

Overview of Evaluation Process—Apprentice Teachers

Updates to the number of observations: For year 2, the minimum required number of observations will be based on licensure status and evaluation scores from the previous year. Any teacher (professional or apprentice) who previously scored a 5 on his/her overall evaluation or individual growth score will be required to have one classroom visit covering three observation domains, as well as two walk throughs. Any teacher (professional or apprentice) who previously scored a 1 on his/her overall evaluation or individual growth score will be required to have four classroom visits covering seven observation domains. Additionally, evaluators must have an initial coaching conversations with these teachers prior to any official observation.

Updates to the number of observations, cont… Professional teachers who do not meet either of the above criteria will be required to have two classroom visits covering four observation domains. Apprentice teachers who do not meet either of the above criteria will be required to have four classroom visits covering seven observation domains.

Research Supporting Instructionally Focused Accountability The challenge of creating an effective teacher accountability system is to improve the quality of teacher instruction, and thereby raise student achievement. States and school districts need to identify the knowledge and skills that a teacher needs to teach successfully, and then create standards and rubrics to measure teaching performance. Odden, Milanowski & Youngs Odden and Clune Point out that student achievement is always the ultimate goal. This training is the first step in identifying the knowledge and skills that a teacher needs to teach successfully.

Elements of an Effective Lesson Trainer should begin by modeling this for the participants by using the “Salad Example.” Draw the consensus map on a piece of chart paper and write a few individual sections: lettuce, tomato, olives and lettuce, tomato, cucumber. The consensus elements would be lettuce and tomato—this would be written in the middle. These consensus maps will be posted and referred to consistently throughout the training. When you think of a lesson you deem to be effective, what were all the elements that led you to that decision?

Effective Elements Summary Defined learning goal that is clearly communicated to students Student engagement and interaction Alignment of activities and materials throughout lesson Student relevancy Numerous checks for mastery Differentiation Make connections to: When a lesson is effective, we know it when we see it. But, when “it” is missing: How do we communicate what is missing to someone else? How do we build the missing skills in others? How do we measure “it?” The TAP Rubric and TEAM model provides us with what “it” is (i.e. what an effective lesson, effective teaching is), the process for building the skills in others, and the tools by which we measure “it.” This is a summary of the major elements that are apparent in the TAP rubric. This list is not exhaustive, but rather a foundation. Their consensus maps should reflect many of the same things.

NIET Rubric NIET has defined a set of professional indicators, known as the Instructional Rubrics, to measure teaching skills and knowledge of the teachers in a school. Instruction Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)* Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. These slides will highlight each element of the rubric (Domain, Indicator, Descriptors and Performance Levels) in slide show mode. Please note: There is NOT a responsibilities rubric, and it can no longer be called SKR.

The Parts of the Rubric Domains Instruction Instruction Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)* Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

The Parts of the Rubric Domains Indicators Instruction Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)* Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Standards and Objectives These slides will highlight each element of the rubric (Domain, Indicator, Descriptors and Performance Levels) in slide show mode. Please note: There is NOT a responsibilities rubric, and it can no longer be called SKR.

The Parts of the Rubric Domains Indicators Descriptors Instruction Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)* Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective.

The Parts of the Rubric Domains Indicators Descriptors Performance Levels Instruction Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)* Standards and Objectives All learning objectives and state content standards are explicitly communicated. Sub-objectives are aligned and logically sequenced to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are: (a) consistently connected to what students have previously learned, (b) know from life experiences, and (c) integrated with other disciplines. Expectations for student performance are clear, demanding, and high. State standards are displayed and referenced throughout the lesson. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Most learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are mostly aligned to the lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are clear. State standards are displayed. There is evidence that most students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Few learning objectives and state content standards are communicated. Sub-objectives are inconsistently aligned to he lesson’s major objective. Learning objectives are rarely connected to what students have previously learned. Expectations for student performance are vague. There is evidence that few students demonstrate mastery of the objective. Significantly Above Expectations (5)* At Expectations (3)* Significantly Below Expectations (1)*

The Instructional Domain of the rubric has been updated for the 2013-14 school year. The newest rubric can be found at http://team-tn.org/forms#team-educator-evaluation. This link includes a copy showing the revisions in color.

Review of Previous Learning Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM)* (*modified from the TAP Teaching Performance Standards) Instruction Planning Standards & Objectives Motivating Students Presenting Instructional Content Lesson Structure & Pacing Activities & Materials Questioning Academic Feedback Grouping Students Teacher Content Knowledge Teacher Knowledge of Students Thinking Problem Solving Environment Instructional Plans Student Work Assessment Managing Student Behavior Expectations Environment Respectful Culture Professionalism Staff Development Instructional Supervision School Responsibilities Reflecting on Teaching

Procedural Understanding vs. Conceptual Understanding Procedural Knowledge Conceptual Knowledge Beginning of understanding Thorough understanding/ independence Trainer should remind participants why we are here and what the objectives are. This is just the first practice of many. We will be moving along the continuum of procedural to conceptual knowledge, and only though repeated exposure will they gain a more conceptual understanding of the rubric and all its uses.

Training Portal: Evaluation Process Tell participants about the tools that they have at their fingertips including hundreds hours of taped and scored lessons, modules, and more learning opportunities that they can use to practice and work to improve their own instruction

Training Modules Tell participants about the tools that they have at their fingertips including hundreds hours of taped and scored lessons, modules, and more learning opportunities that they can use to practice and work to improve their own instruction

Video Library Tell participants about the tools that they have at their fingertips including hundreds hours of taped and scored lessons, modules, and more learning opportunities that they can use to practice and work to improve their own instruction

TEAM Logistics Q & A What questions do you have about the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM)? http://team-tn.org/ Please feel free to add any logistical information you have here.