Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Joint Education Committee Meeting December 12, 2012

2 Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR) A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectiveness M-STAR’s Goal: To improve teacher practice and positively impact student learning M-STAR: provides a reliable and valid process based on common standards, includes multiple measures, indentifies areas of strength and challenge, and helps track educational progress to improve the performance of teachers.

3 The National Perspective:
Research and Reports Research confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students’ achievement. Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways: Lack sufficient connection to goals for student learning and growth Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for improvement Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness Talking Points: In the 2009 McKinsey Education report, “Shaping the Future: How Good Education Systems Can Become Great in the Decade Ahead,” the central importance of good teaching and school leadership in student outcomes is widely acknowledged. Over a 3 year period, learning with a high-performing teacher instead of a low-performing teacher can make a 53-percentile difference for two students who start at the same achievement level. Replacing an average principal with an outstanding principal in an average school can increase student achievement by over 20 percentile points.

4 Trends in Teacher Evaluation
Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluation Focus on models and measures that help teachers/schools/districts improve performance Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher evaluation measures and models

5 U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachers
Method for determining and identifying effective and highly effective teachers: Must include multiple measures Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth Supplemental measures may include multiple observation based instruments Talking Points: One of the most important things school systems can do to promote student achievement is to ensure that all students have effective teachers. Over the years, research has shown that many of our traditional methods of ensuring teacher effectiveness, such as requiring particular credentials, experience, or education, are not strongly related to teachers’ effectiveness in promoting achievement. In response, policymakers are looking at alternative measures of teacher effectiveness.

6 Defining Teacher Quality
“Highly qualified teacher” status: Bachelor’s degree Full state certification Demonstrated knowledge of assigned subject(s) “Highly effective teacher” status: Student academic growth Other measures

7 Defining Teacher Quality
Stakeholder engagement Mississippi Teachers of the Year State Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC) Meetings with Teachers and Principals Teacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers) Teacher Organizations Mississippi Association of School Superintendents Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to streamline and redesign instrument

8 Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) in Mississippi
Five Year Federal Grant Awarded September 2010 $ 10.7 Million Award for MS Serves 10 schools in 7 districts Multi-strategy approach to school improvement Here are the basics of the MS TIF grant.

9 Five TIF Project Components for
Multiple Strategies Five TIF Project Components for School Improvement Educator Evaluation Student Growth Data Professional Development Career Ladders for Teachers Performance Based Compensation TIF proposes that there are multiple strategies for school improvement, not just financial incentives. Even though financial incentives gets the most publicity, it is not the magic bullet.


11 M-STAR Why a standardized process?
Increases the validity of the evaluation and the reliability of the evaluation instruments Ensures teachers are evaluated fairly, using consistent criteria Ensures that scores are based on evidence, not on personal judgment or bias Strengthens evaluative decisions Explain: “M-STAR will ensure that teachers are being evaluated fairly. It will also increase the reliability and the validity of the performance level.”

12 How is M-STAR Different?
Traditional Observations Evidence-Based Observations Single time point for classroom observation Multiple time points for classroom observation Use of “checklist” tools (strength/weakness, yes/no) Use of rubrics that define instructional improvement on a continuum High performance ratings given to almost all teachers Variations in performance ratings among teachers Does not include student outcomes Links teacher effectiveness to student performance

13 Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Five domains (weighted equally) Planning Assessment Instruction Learning Environment Professional Responsibilities 20 Standards Four levels of effectiveness: Unsatisfactory Emerging Effective Distinguished

14 Professional Practice: 50%
A teacher’s summative rating is based on two components: Professional Practice and Student Outcomes. Professional Practice: 50% M-STAR: 30% 2 formal observations 5 informal observations (walkthroughs) Professional Growth Goals: 20% Self-evaluate, receive feedback, and progress toward goals Student Outcomes: 50% Individual Growth State tested areas OR Student Learning Objectives Non-tested areas AND School-wide Growth Tested and Non-tested Explain that these percentages are tentative.

15 Formal Observation Cycle
Review lesson plan, understand context, & ask clarifying questions Key Questions: What are students learning? What is the evidence of this learning? Pre-Observation Conference 1-2 days prior to observation Observation Post-Observation Conference Within 1 week of observation Follow up Walkthrough Within 2 weeks of post-observation conference This slide diagrams the Formal Observation Cycle. Explain: “This slide diagrams the Formal Observation Cycle. Notice the four steps of the cycle including the timeline and also the importance of feedback.” Effective, concrete feedback & next steps are critical. Observe feedback in action

16 Scoring Process Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point Within each domain, the points will be averaged. The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating. Explain: “For each standard, teachers will receive a rating. The teacher will receive 4 points for distinguished, 3 points for effective, 2 points for emerging, and 1 point for unsatisfactory. The points are averaged within each domain. The averages will be weighted equally to get a summative rating.” Have participants refer to pages of the process manual as you proceed through the scoring slides.

17 M-STAR Ratings A teacher’s performance will be appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale: Level 4 Distinguished: indicates that the teacher’s performance consistently exceeds expectations. Level 3 Effective: indicates that the teacher’s performance meets expectations. Level 2 Emerging: indicates that the teacher’s performance inconsistently meets expectations. Level 1 Unsatisfactory: indicates that the teacher’s performance does not meet expectations.

18 Example: Summative Observation Rating
Domain Domain Score Weight Weighted Rating I: Planning 2.75 x .55 II: Assessment 4 .80 III: Instruction 2.5 .50 IV: Learning Environment 3.5 x .70 V: Professional Responsibilities Summative Classroom Observation Rating 3.05 Explain: “The evaluator would multiply each domain score by .20 in order to obtain a weighted rating. Each domain counts 1/5 of the overall summative classroom observation rating.” ( ) 5

19 Implementation Timeline
MS Teacher Evaluation System Implementation Timeline Pilot Implementation (TIF) Statewide Training on New System July 2012 – July 2013 Field Test the System Full Implementation

Teachers Clear expectations for both teachers and principals Specific, timely feedback Principal awareness of what will occur in the classroom Teacher/principal communication Necessity of teacher preparation Focus on teacher’s strengths and weaknesses Teacher self-reflection Prior identification of potential problems Principals Clear expectations for both teachers and principals Opportunity for open dialogue Information on what administrators want to observe Easing of teachers’ anxieties Relationship building with teachers Opportunity for knowledge gathering Alerting of principals to special circumstances

Teachers Immediate, timely feedback Dialogue on strengths and areas of improvement Opportunity for professional development and improvement plans Self-reflection Teacher explanations of classroom activities (planned and unplanned) Principals Feedback on strengths and areas of challenges Teacher reflection Open dialogue Provision of accommodations and recommendations for improvement Relationship building Teacher input regarding professional development needs Time for teacher/administration collaboration Opportunity for coaching and professional learning

22 TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING! The ultimate goal of M-STAR is…


Download ppt "Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google