UEA Evaluation Organizing Project August 8, 2013

1. UEA Evaluation Organizing ProjectAugust 8, 2013 Insert EOP logo

2. Welcome • Thank you! • Webinar protocol • Please mute phone; ask any questions through Q&A section online • If you have technical questions start a “private chat” with “host” Paul Chadwick • Use “chat box” for community discussions

3. Agenda • Educators Taking the Lead • Roles and expectations • Evaluation components • District observation tools • Timeline • Communication • Policies affecting evaluation

5. Roles and Expectations • Evaluation Organizing Project (EOP) Workgroup • State Evaluation Experts • UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts • UniServ “Dream Teams” • NEA

6. EOP Workgroup • Who? UniServ Directors, local presidents, UEA staff • What? Meet twice a month to identify needs and develop resources to support UEA and UniServ work on the Evaluation Organizing Project Assess and adjust work based on progress and needs in UniServs

7. State Evaluation Experts • Who? Signe Balluf (Davis) Gay Beck (Alpine) Dessie Olsen (Salt Lake) • What? Design and deliver training to UniServ Evaluation Experts and Dream Teams • The Utah Effective Teaching Standards and engaging in reflective practice • Student Learning Objectives and improving student performance

8. UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts • Who? Highly skilled classroom teachers identified by UniServs and locals • What? • Receive in-depth training on Utah evaluation framework and evaluation issues • Work with UniServ/local to support evaluation organizing efforts

9. UniServ “Dream Teams” • Who? UniServ Directors, local presidents and vice presidents, Board members, membership chairs, etc. • What? Design and implement an organizing plan to support current members and grow membershipby using evaluation-related resources developed by the EOP Workgroup and the knowledge of UniServ evaluation experts

10. NEA • Who? Bev Johnson and Sara Gjerdrum • What? Work with UniServ and local leaders to facilitate project

11. Required Evaluation Components Districts must include the following minimum criteria in their evaluation system (although they can also choose to include other criteria beyond those listed) Teachers: • Observations of instructional quality • Evidence of student growth • Parent and student input Administrators: • Observations of leadership quality • Evidence of student growth • Parent, student and employee input • Effectiveness of evaluating employee performance

12. District Observation Tools for 2013-14

13. Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)

14. Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)

15. Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.) • 2013 – 2014 Observation Tool Participants • 12 pilot districts (remaining from the total of 16 pilot districts in 2012‐2013) • 23 new adopting districts • 29 districts adopting the teaching observation tool • 36 districts adopting the leadership observation tool • 6 districts developing different models (Davis, Grand, Granite, Ogden, Park City, USDB, Washington)

16. Timeline • Save the Date! September 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. • Training on the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and gathering evidence to support evaluation • Held at the UEA Building • Details about hotel/mileage, hours and complete agenda will be sent in the next few weeks

17. Timeline (cont.) • Second training on the standards and observation tool is tentatively scheduled for November • Training on student growth and student learning objectives (SLOs) is scheduled for January • Some trainings may occur regionally rather than at UEA

18. Timeline (cont.) • UEA Convention October 17, 2013 • Evaluation-related professional development workshops • What Teachers Can Do to Take Charge of Their Own Professionalism • Making the New Utah Effective Teaching Standards Work for You (NEA Academy)

19. Communication • Back to school email message and video • “Welcome Back” letter • EOP Meeting Summary • Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting the Educators Taking the Lead project • Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting one or two teaching standards

20. Communication (cont.) • eNewsletterarticles on the standards September Standard 9: Leadership & Collaboration Standard 10: Professional & Ethical Standards October Standard 6: Instructional Planning November Standard 7: Instructional Strategies December None January Standard 1: Learning Development Standard 2: Learning Differences February Standard 3: Learner & Learning Environments March Standard 8: Reflection & Continuous Growth April Standard 4: Content Knowledge Standard 5: Assessment

21. Policies Affecting Evaluation • Computer Adaptive Testing • School Grading

22. Computer Adaptive Testing • Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) • Replaces current CRTs • Aligned to the new Utah Core Curriculum • Assesses ELA, Math, Science grades 3-12 • Summative, interim and formative assessments available

23. Computer Adaptive Testing (cont.) • Implementation • Fall 2013: Formative assessments available • Replaces UTIPS but UTIPS available during transition • Spring 2014: Summative assessments begin • Results not available until July 2014 • Fall 2014: Interim assessments available • Spring 2015: Summative assessments continue • Results available immediately • A professional development plan for educators about the new assessment system is included in the implementation process but has not yet been developed • SAGE details available athttp://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System.aspx

24. School Grading • Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) • Resulted from SB 59 in 2011 legislative session • UEA opposed SB 59 but once it passed participated in a workgroup with USSA, USBA, PTA, USOE and districts to help design UCAS • Replaced UPASS as school accountability system • Provides school level assessment and accountability information to the public • First reports published in 2012 (no letter grades assigned) • Adopted as Utah’s federal accountability system

25. School Grading (cont.) • SB 271 3S School Grading Amendments • Passed 2013 Legislature • UEA opposed SB 271 3S during legislative session and asked Governor to veto the bill when it passed the legislature • Creates a second, separate accountability system • UCAS will report school performance for federal requirements and SB 271 3S will report school performance for state requirements • School grades expected to published Sept 1, 2013

26. School Grading (cont.) SB 271 3S UCAS Requires a fixed standard to measure “sufficient growth”, currently set at the 40th percentile: Students below 40th percentile = zero points All students above 40th percentile = same points Student growth is measured along a continuum and counts for every student: • Low growth = low points • High growth = high points

27. School Grading (cont.) • Currently, it is expected that both UCAS and SB271 3S school performance reports will be calculated and published separately on the USOE website on Sept 1, 2013 • The State Board of Education has indicated that school grades will only be published for SB 271 3S (as required by law)

28. Questions?