The Webster Groves School District’s Journey to a More Effective Evaluation Process September, 2014

Was Evaluation Effective?  Starting in 2009, discussions started with the Teacher Evaluation Committee on the effectiveness of the current evaluation model  One-sided  Sit and get  Seen as a “gotcha”  Not looked upon as a growth model

Long, Thoughtful Process District committee with representatives from each school, Central Office, building administrators, BOE members, and curriculum coordinators worked for three years on process. Researched current best practice and guiding state legislation in order to finalize evaluation process.

Several Years of Struggle Dedicated teacher / administrator PBTE committee looked at how to revise current system Looked at a variety of evaluation models Worked extensively on Charlotte Danielson’s rubric/model Still stuck – word- smithing Every. Single. Word.

Attended the Evaluation of the Art and Science of Teaching national conference in October, 2011 What was holding us back and what we lacked as a district was a common language around teaching and learning Different people and schools could not fully collaborate – speaking different languages

Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model PBTE committee made the recommendation to adopt the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model prior to the school year. The Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model is fully aligned to the Missouri Educator Evaluation System, Standards, and Quality Indicators. District-wide Professional Development focused on Marzano’s The Art and Science of Teaching and the Marzano Evaluation Model during the school years of , with plans to extend and deepen the professional development for all teachers in subsequent years.

A COUPLE NOTES... The Art and Science of Teaching  Everything presented in The Art and Science of Teaching has a firm foundation in 40+ years of research on effective teaching  Each chapter begins with a summary of research relevant to the chapter Art and Science?  The science of teaching relies on research that tells us which strategies have a high probability of working well with students.  The art of teaching relies on the classroom teacher to determine which strategies to employ with the right students at the right time.

Key Components of Marzano Model Four key points a district must do to utilize the Marzano model of supervision, which focuses on teacher expertise: Develop a common language of teaching (do we understand what it means and do we understand what it looks like?) Provide opportunities for focused feedback and practice Provide opportunities for observing and discussing effective teaching Require individual teacher growth and development plans on a yearly basis

Marzano’s Domains and Elements Domain 1-Classroom strategies and behaviors – 41 Elements broken into 9 Design Questions Domain 2-Planning and preparing Domain 3-Reflecting on teaching Domain 4-Collegiality and professionalism

Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism ACHIEVEMENT Domain 1: Classroom strategies and behaviors Domain 2: Planning and preparing Domain 3: Reflecting on teaching FOUR DOMAINS FOR A COMMON LANGUAGE OF TEACHING

Domain 1

9 Design Questions Routine Segments – Learning Goals and Feedback (DQ 1) – Rules and Procedures (DQ 6) Content Specific Segments – Interacting with New Knowledge (DQ 2) – Practicing and Deepening (DQ 3) – Generating/Testing Hypothesis (DQ 4) Segments Enacted on the Spot – Student Engagement (DQ 5) – Adherence to Rules and Procedures (DQ 7) – Teacher-Student Relationships (DQ 8) – High Expectations (DQ 9) To what degree, low, moderate, or high, do these lesson segments and design questions work interdependently?

Compelling Whys Helps us move from good to great Supported by 40+ years of research Helps every teacher, administrator, and student Lends more credibility to the evaluation process Allows for growth Improves teacher and student learning Supports a common language to promote collaboration Supports interdependent work as a school and district Supports a better understanding of effective practice Most importantly, the focus is on student achievement.

All Means All All classroom teachers All specialty teachers All special education teachers Tutors All administrators All Board members All Curriculum Coordinators Goal – Common Language means all are trained

 Board Rep on PBTE and PDC/iDEA Committees  Board read Art and Science of Teaching  Board dialogue of A & S with admins.  Board read Effective Supervision of Art and Science of Teaching (ESAST)  Board dialogue of ESAST with admins.  Board approval of PBTE process  Board celebrates great teachers and supportive of ongoing learning for all in the organization

Timeline PBTE works to refine eval. tool PBTE selects A & S Process Focused study of A & S Continue study of A & S Implement iObservation and new evaluation tool Continue study of A & S and iObservation Design student growth component

Professional Learning  PBTE, PDC, coordinators, admins., and building teacher leaders participated in 3 days of introduction of A & S – Summer 2012  All staff read Art and Science of Teaching for the school year.  Supt. shares rationale for study of A & S at opening day with all staff.  5 half day in-depth learning modules for staff focused on specific design questions from the A & S.  Admin. PD aligned to teacher PD throughout the year.  Admin. read Effective Supervision of the A & S.

Professional Learning  Summer 2013 three days of admin. training on inter rater reliability training on iObservation. Sessions ended with an assessment of proficiency.  Supt. shares rationale for new eval. Tool at opening day with all staff.  Teachers continue in-depth study of A & S design questions 2, 3, 4, 5.  Admin. have a year long focus on inter rater reliability (IRR).  PD on the use of iObservation for teachers and administrators.  Walk throughs with peers practicing IRR

Professional Learning  Continued PD on domains 2, 3, 4.  Continuing IRR.

Review Teacher Scales for Reflective Practice-Domains 1, 2, 3, and 4 Complete self-assessment of all 60 elements Complete Goals and Growth plan for the school year Meet with administrator either face to face or electronically to discuss and finalize Growth plan Respond to all observations, questions, etc. sent to you on iObservation

Complete student surveys using guidelines provided in the WG PBTE Process, and use information for possible revision of Goals and Growth Plan Meet with administrator for Mid-Year Formative Evaluation At the end of the school year, update self-assessment and complete Goal Summary of the Growth Plan Update / rewrite Goals and Growth Plan for school year Meet with administrator for end of the year Summative Evaluation

Review and approve Goals and Growth Plan for each teacher Observe teacher at least 5 times a year – 2 walk-throughs, 2 informal, 1 formal observation in Domain 1 Provide feedback for all observations, as well as for other school events as warranted, using iObservation Meet at mid-year to review survey results, Goals and Growth Plan, and Mid-year Formative Evaluation

Meet with teacher to discuss end of the year Goal Summary Provide end of the year Summative Evaluation for teachers Work with teacher to develop Goals and Growth Plan for the upcoming school year.

Differences Old PBTE Process Tenured teachers evaluated every three years Three evaluation standards-Meets expectation, Approaching expectation, Does not meet expectation Growth plans developed ineffectively at times Student surveys not utilized by all teachers Teachers on “observation cycle” observed a minimum of 2-3 times during their evaluation year No Student Growth component to evaluation No final evaluation score Process paper based Marzano PBTE Process All teachers evaluated every year Four evaluation standards – Highly effective, Proficient, Developing, Unsatisfactory Growth plans tied to evaluation process Student surveys utilized to review/revise Growth Plans Teachers observed a minimum of 5 times a year, every year in Domain 1 Student Growth data part of evaluation process starting in the school year A final evaluation score Process electronically based using iObservation with an additional professional development component provided

Summative Evaluation The Summative Evaluation is based on the results of the teacher’s performance on the elements of Marzano’s Instructional Practice (the 60 elements presented in Domain 1-Classroom Strategies and Behaviors, Domain 2-Planning and Preparation, Domain 3- Reflecting on Teaching, and Domain 4-Collegiality and Professionalism) and growth of student achievement. The growth of student achievement component will be designed by the PBTE Committee for initial implementation.

iObservation

The Goal of Teacher Evaluation An expectation that all teachers can increase their expertise from year to year, which produces gains in student achievement from year to year with a powerful cumulative effect.

Reflections

The Goal of Evaluation Continue to grow as professionals and to be better at our craft today than we were in the past.

Next Steps Continue learning together. Continue observing as groups throughout the district. Continue offering opportunities for teachers observe each other. Finalizing work on student growth component of evaluation tool.

Questions? In Good to Great Collins writes: “Make everything you touch the best it can possibly be – not just because of what you can get, but because you simply cannot imagine doing it any other way.”

THIS IS OUR VISION! As a learning community, the Webster Groves School District will lead in purposeful innovation that challenges each of us to discover and pursue our passions and make a positive impact on the world.

Tweet Up! Think about the difference between learning activities and learning goals. Using 140 characters or less (spaces count!), explain the difference between the two. When time is called, find a close partner and share your tweet. We’ll debrief as a whole group and we’re looking for “just right” tweets!