Educator Effectiveness Summit: SB 191 Into Action Colorado State Model for Educator Evaluation

1. Educator Effectiveness Summit: SB 191 Into Action Colorado State Model for Educator Evaluation March 5, 2012 Toby King Consultant Evaluation and Support Mike Gradoz Consultant Evaluation and Support Colorado Department of Education

2. Senate Bill 10-191 • A system to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel to improve the quality of education. • Improve instruction. • Serve as a measurement of professional growth and continuous improvement. • Provide a basis for making decisions in the areas of hiring, compensation, promotion, assignment, professional development, earning and retaining non probationary status, dismissal, and nonrenewal of contract.

3. Definition of Principal Effectiveness Effective Principals in the state of Colorado are responsible for the collective success of their schools, including the learning, growth and achievement of both students and staff. As schools’ primary instructional leaders, effective Principals enable critical discourse and data- driven reflection about curriculum, assessment, instruction, and student progress, and create structures to facilitate improvement. Effective Principals are adept at creating systems that maximize the utilization of resources and human capital, foster collaboration, and facilitate constructive change. By creating a common vision and articulating shared values, effective Principals lead and manage their schools in a manner that supports schools’ ability to promote equity and to continually improve their positive impact on students and families.

4. Components of an Effective Evaluation System 1. Evaluation System Goals 2. Stakeholder Investment and Communication Plan 3. Selecting Measures 4. System Structure 5. Evaluators 6. Data Integrity 7. Using Results & Professional Development 8. System Evaluation

5. Principal Quality Standards

6. Application of Quality Standards • Each quality standard includes “elements”—which provide a more detailed description of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard. • All districts must base their evaluations on the full set of quality standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements. • Districts that use their own locally developed standards must crosswalk those standards to the state’s quality standards and elements, and be able to report for each principal and teacher (1) a final performance evaluation rating, and (2) performance results for each quality standard.

8. Principal Evaluations I. Strategic leadership II. Instructional leadership III. School culture/equity leadership IV. Human resource leadership V. Managerial leadership VI. External development leadership VII. Leadership around student academic growth Measured using multiple measures on multiple occasions, including tools that capture: (1) teacher input; (2) number and percentage of teachers with each; and (3) number and percentage of teachers who are improving in their performance, in comparison to the goals articulated in the principal’s professional performance plan. Evaluated using the following: (1)data included in the school performance framework; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth.

9. Components of the Principal Rubric Quality Standard Rating levels Element of the standard Professional Practices

10. *Artifact is required for all principals and assistant principals. Evidence provided by artifacts Examples of artifacts Rating points Evaluator’s comments Ratings and point equivalents Rating Scale Principal comment section

11. Not Evident describes practices of a principal who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them. The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what principals do on a day-to-day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels. The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the outcomes of the principal’s practices, including expectations for staff, students, parents and community members, as a result of practices exhibited under rating levels 2 and 3.

12. Rubric Rating Levels 1 Does not meet state standard but is making progress toward meeting standard. 0 Does not meet state standard and is not making progress toward meeting standard. 2 Meets state standard. 3 Exceeds state standard. 4 Significantly exceeds state standard.

13. Definition of Teacher Effectiveness Effective Teachers in the state of Colorado have the knowledge, skills, and commitments needed to provide excellent and equitable learning opportunities and growth for all students. They strive to support growth and development, close achievement gaps and to prepare diverse student populations for postsecondary and workforce success. Effective Teachers facilitate mastery of content and skill development, and employ and adjust evidence-based strategies and approaches for students who are not achieving mastery and students who need acceleration. They also develop in students the skills, interests and abilities necessary to be lifelong learners, as well as for democratic and civic participation. Effective Teachers communicate high expectations to students and their families and utilize diverse strategies to engage them in a mutually supportive teaching and learning environment. Because effective Teachers understand that the work of ensuring meaningful learning opportunities for all students cannot happen in isolation, they engage in collaboration, continuous reflection, on-going learning and leadership within the profession.

14. Teacher Quality Standards

15. Application of Quality Standards • Each quality standard includes “elements”—which provide a more detailed description of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard. • All districts must base their evaluations on the full set of quality standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements. • Districts that use their own locally developed standards must crosswalk those standards to the state’s quality standards and elements, and be able to report for each principal and teacher (1) a final performance evaluation rating, and (2) performance results for each quality standard.

17. Teacher Evaluations VI. Responsibility for student academic growth I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on practice V. Demonstrate leadership • Evaluated using the following: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessment results; and (4) for subjects with statewide summative assessment results available in two consecutive grades, results from the Colorado Growth Model. Measured using multiple measures on multiple occasions, including: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, where appropriate and feasible, peer feedback, feedback from parents or guardians, or review of teacher lesson plans or student work samples. May include additional measures.

18. Components of the Teacher Rubric Quality Standard Rating levels Element that aligns with standard Professional Practices

19. Evidence provided by artifact Evaluator comments Examples of Artifacts Teacher comment section

20. Not evident. This describes practices of a teacher who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them. The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what teachers do on a day to day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels. The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the impact of the teacher’s practices on student outcomes.

21. Rubric Rating Levels 1 Does not meet state standard but is making progress toward meeting standard. 0 Does not meet state standard and is not making progress toward meeting standard. 2 Meets state standard. 3 Exceeds state standard. 4 Significantly exceeds state standard.

22. Principal and Teacher Performance Evaluation RatingsAfter CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix, the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.

24. The Content Collaboratives are a group of educators tasked with creating and disseminating standards-based assessment and instructional materials for use in the classroom. These groups are a key piece in determining how to measure non-state tested subject matter for use in the new educator evaluation system.    The Content Collaboratives and Colorado Department of Education, along with state and national experts, will establish examples of student learning measures within each content area. These will be piloted in select districts, undergo revision and then be disseminated to all districts. The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment will facilitate and support the work and meetings of the Content Collaboratives. A technical steering committee will ensure the technical reliability of the identified assessments. What’s on the Horizon: January-May 2012: Launch Cohort 1 Content Collaboratives in order to establish measures of student academic growth in Social Studies; Reading/Writing/Communicating; Music; Dance, Drama and Theatre Arts; and Visual Arts Summer 2012: Launch Cohort 2 Content Collaboratives in order establish measures of student academic growth in World Languages; Science; Mathematics; Physical Education; and Comprehensive Health Fall 2012: Launch pilot of Cohort 1 products in districts participating in CDE’s Educator Effectiveness pilot January 2013: Launch pilot of Cohort 2 products in districts participating in CDE’s Educator Effectiveness pilot Bank of example measures identified will begin to populate after the first pilot has concluded (Summer 2013) For more information about assessments, contact Jo O’Brien, assistant commissioner for assessments, research and evaluation at 303-866-6852. Content Collaborative

25. Cohort I & II: Flow Chart of Work Pilot then peer review Colorado Content Collaboratives Bank National Researchers Technical Steering Committee Future Work I: Jan-Mar 2012 II: Jun-Aug 2012 I: Feb-May 2012 II: July-Nov 2012 I &II: Feb-Dec 2012 I & II: Aug 2012- Aug 2014 I: Aug 2013II: Aug 2014 Researchers gather existing fair, valid and reliable measures for Consideration. Collaboratives use protocol to review researchers’ measures for feasibility, utility and gaps. Prepare to fill gaps. Provide recommendations to Technical Steering Committee. Technical Steering Committee creates frameworks and design principles for collaboratives to use in reviewing and creating measures. Committee reviews recommendations of collaboratives. Piloting and peer review of measures. Aug 2012-Aug 2013: Cohort I piloting & peer review January 2013-Aug 2014: Cohort II piloting & peer review Measures placed in online Education Effectiveness Resource Bank for voluntary use.

26. Pilot Period 2011 - 2013 • Principal and teacher rubrics • Measures of student academic growth • Use of student growth objectives • Collecting teacher input for principal evaluations • Collecting student and family perception data • Aggregating measures to assign final evaluation ratings • Costs of implementation • Support structures for small and/or rural districts • CDE monitoring methods

28. Contact Information • Katy Anthes Executive Director of Educator Effectiveness anthes_k@cde.state.co.us • Michael Gradoz Consultant for Educator Effectiveness gradoz_m@cde.state.co.us • Toby King Consultant for Educator Effectiveness king_t@cde.state.co.us • Britt Wilkenfeld Data Specialist wilkenfeld_b@cde.state.co.us • For more information, please visit: http://www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness/