Developing Effective Teacher Evaluations Christina Linder Director, Certification and Professional Standards

Timeline for Evaluation After June 30, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include student achievement data as part of their evaluation models for superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, principals, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations. February, 2013 and every February following, the first half a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teachers evaluation is based on the Charlotte Danielson Framework and includes the parent/guardian input component. By the end of the 2013 school year and subsequent years, the second half of a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student achievement as determined by the local school board. Starting in March 2011, districts and public charter schools must submit the results of teacher and principal evaluations through the ISEE Longitudinal Data System monthly upload. September , all district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation models must be posted to the SDE website along with the results of all teacher and principal evaluations. After June 30, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include parent input as part of their evaluation models for principals, other school based administrators and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.

Evaluating for What? Federal Definition of Effective & Highly Effective Teacher Effective teacher: students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance. Highly effective teacher students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth.

At the recommendation of the task force, school districts were required to adopt a teacher evaluation model and policy aligned to the Charlotte Danielson Framework. All districts were required to submit their teacher evaluation models and policies to the State Department of Education for review and approval. During the school year, districts were required, at a minimum, to pilot the Danielson Framework in their district with full implementation by the school year. Most districts compliant with State Board Rule and engaging in a review of their process prior to full implementation. Teacher Evaluations Prior to ARRA and Students Come First

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) –In 2009, Idaho signed on to receive federal funds under ARRA. –ARRA reporting requirements: States must post each district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation model and policy online for the general public to view. States must post the results of each teacher and principal evaluation model online. –Idaho was able to reach a compromise with the US Department of Education to only post the results in aggregate, by district/charter and in cases where five or more principals or five or more teacher are employed rather than individual results. State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by ARRA

Resulting Evaluation Requirements in 2011 ARRA Compliance – Beginning in March 2011, districts and public charter schools submit the results of teacher and principal evaluations through ISEE Longitudinal Data System. (Proficient/Non-Proficient publicly reported in aggregate) ARRA Compliance – By September 30, 2011, all district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation models must be posted to the SDE website along with the results of all teacher and principal evaluations. (Teacher Evaluation Model according to Idaho Code, Administrator Model according to district design)

Student Achievement Component in Evaluations : Professional Personnel and : Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation –By July 1, 2012, all superintendent, assistant superintendent, director, principal, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts, must receive an evaluation in which 50% of the evaluation results are based on objective measures of growth in student achievement as determined by the board of trustees. State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

Districts can utilize student achievement data that is individual for each teacher or schoolwide student achievement data similar to that used for the local share of Pay for Performance. This student achievement portion of the evaluation is separate from Pay for Performance but districts can use the same models of student achievement for both. Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component

Colorado Growth Model using ISAT Test Results End of Course Assessments IRI test results ACT/SAT results Student graduation rates/dropout rates Percent of graduates attending postsecondary education or entering military service Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component

What areas of student achievement do you want to see improve? What is your highest area of need? How can student growth be measured in non-tested subjects and grades? Please keep in mind that you must resubmit your teacher evaluation models and policies once you have made these changes. This is in compliance with the ARRA requirements. Things to Consider

Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations : Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation –By July 1, 2012, input from the parents and guardians of students shall be considered as a factor in the evaluation of principals, any other school-based administrative employees and teachers. –For certificated employees on a Category A, B or grandfathered continuing contract, this input shall be part of the first half of the evaluation that must be completed before February 1 of each year. State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

A number of Idaho school districts already utilize parent or guardian input for evaluation purposes, including: –Hansen –Vision Charter –Filer School District –Plummer-Worley –Potlatch Formal surveys (e.g. 360 Degree Evaluation Model) Evidence in a teachers portfolio. Models for Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations

This requirement can be considered an enhancement to the collection of artifacts in completing a teacher’s normal evaluation. –Domain 4, Professional Responsibilities, Component 4c, Communicating with families: Teacher provides frequent information to families, as appropriate, about the instructional program. Students participate in preparing materials for their families. Teacher provides information to families frequently on student progress, with students contributing to the design of the system. Response to family concerns is handled with great professional and cultural sensitivity. Teacher’s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful. Students contribute ideas for projects that could be enhanced by family participation. Things to Consider

Will you consider informal communications received throughout the year or only formal surveys? Will the survey ask if the parent/guardian has attended parent/teacher conference or if they have spoken to your child’s teacher or administrator? What percentage of your evaluations will be based on the parent/guardian input or will it just be another data collection element used in looking at the overall performance? Resource: Matt Hyde Parent Involvement Coordinator Things to Consider

Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2012 SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include student achievement data as part of their evaluation models for superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, principals, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations. SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include parent input as part of their evaluation models for principals, other school based administrators and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.

Number of Evaluations and Timeline for Evaluations Teachers: –There shall be a minimum of one written evaluation in each of the annual contract years of employment including Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts. –The second portion shall be completed by the end of the school year and shall comprise at least fifty percent of the total written evaluation and shall be based on objective measure(s) of growth in student achievement. –The requirement to provide at least one written evaluation does not exclude additional evaluations that may be performed. State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2013 SCF Compliance – By February, 2013 and every February following, the first half a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teachers evaluation is based on the Charlotte Danielson Framework and includes the parent/guardian input component. SCF Compliance – By the end of the 2013 school year and subsequent years, the second half of a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student achievement as determined by the local school board.

Beyond Compliance: Putting It All Together What other measures could be considered? While state rule and statute require Value-Added measures, observation, and parental input, there are others to consider: –Content Pedagogy Assessments –Analysis of Artifacts and Portfolios –Self-Report of Practice –Student Evaluation

Using Multiple Measures to Assess Teacher Effectiveness Fall 2011 Sample Population- second and third year teachers Recruiting districts for a national professional licensure project

Three Measures 1)Content Knowledge for Teaching 2)Observation of Classroom Practice Using the Danielson Framework 3)Artifacts of Teaching

Goals of the Pilot To understand: –how professional licensure could be improved through richer measures –how selected measures function with real teachers in a state system –the operational issues required to deliver a fully functioning system

Participating States Georgia Idaho Kansas Maryland Missouri New Jersey Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Utah Vermont West Virginia Wyoming

For More Information A full overview of the project can be accessed at at the SDE Teacher Evaluation websitehttp:// or

Links to Helpful Resources NCCTQ Educator Quality Downloadable Resources: Using the Framework for Teacher Evaluation (Handouts from BSU Center for School Improvement) andouts%20-%20All.pdfhttp://csi.boisestate.edu/Improvement/Teacher%20Evaluation%20H andouts%20-%20All.pdf Sample Evaluation Models. Powerpoint: owerPoint.pptxhttp://scee.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/060/5f4/Laura_Goe_P owerPoint.pptx Colorado Growth Model Powerpoint: abid=116http:// abid=116 Initial Findings from MET Including Student Surveys: education/Documents/preliminary-findings-research-paper.pdfhttp:// education/Documents/preliminary-findings-research-paper.pdf

Questions?