edutalk public law 90 teacher school leader evaluation systems
Skip this Video
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33


  • Uploaded on

EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90 TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS. July 12, 2012. tonight. Intro Activity PAST: Revisiting Past Work PRESENT: Understanding Systems FUTURE: Next Steps Wrap-Up. Intro activity. Where we are In regards to PL90, on your post-its, please write:

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90 TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS' - reed-frazier

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Intro Activity

PAST: Revisiting Past Work

PRESENT: Understanding Systems

FUTURE: Next Steps


intro activity
Intro activity
  • Where we are
    • In regards to PL90, on your post-its, please write:
      • One Positive Remark
      • One Concern
      • One Question

2011 Legislative Session


Evaluation Systems



McREL – See handout

PAR – See handout

A Process for Developing a System: IN-TASS

  • IDOE-developed model for PL 90
  • Created by the Indiana Teacher Evaluation Cabinet, comprised of a group of educators across the state.
  • Teachers divided into 3 groups:
    • GROUP 1: At least ½ of classes taught receive Indiana Growth Model data
    • GROUP 2: Less than ½ of classes taught receive Indiana Growth Model data
    • GROUP 3: No classes receive Indiana Growth Model data (High school teachers)
rise two major components
RISE: two major components

Professional Practice

Student Learning

rise evaluators
RISE: evaluators

Who assesses teacher performance on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric?

  • Each teacher assigned to a Lead/Primary Evaluator
  • Secondary Evaluators recommended; not required
  • All evaluators must be trained in RISE
    • Min. 24 hours of training
rise professional practice cycle
RISE: professional practice cycle
  • Professional Development Goals
  • Teachers set beginning of year professional development goals (specific & measurable), using RISE rubric
  • Pre-Conference (OPTIONAL)
  • Before observation to discuss lesson and class.
  • Extended Observation (REQUIRED)
  • At least 2 per year (1 each semester)
  • At least 40 min, may span 2 class periods
  • Lead evaluator must conduct at least one
  • Mid-Year Conference (OPTIONAL)
  • Teachers reflect on progress to goal with evaluator
  • Summative Conference (REQUIRED)
  • Discuss year-long performance leading to summative rating
  • Short Observation (REQUIRED)
  • At least 10 min; 3 per year (spread across both semesters); unannounced
  • Lead evaluator must conduct at least one
  • No conferencing unless requested by teacher
  • Post Conference (REQUIRED)
  • Completed within 5 school days after each extended observation
rise teacher effectiveness rubric
RISE: teacher effectiveness rubric

Teacher Effectiveness Rubric

After a teacher has receive 5 evaluations for the year (2 extended, 3 short), summative rubric scores for each of the domains are weighted by the following system. Note the emphasis on instruction.

rise student learning objectives
RISE: student learning objectives

Student Learning Objectives

PRE-APPROVED (must be used if available):

TIER 1 (most confidence):

State Assessment (ISTEP, ECA, LAS Links, etc.)

TIER 2: Common Corporation Assessments (created or purchased)

Must be approved by evaluator:

TIER 3:Common School Assessments (created/purchased)

TIER 4:Classroom Assessment

Class Objective: E.g. Students will achieve 80% mastery of 11th grade ELA standards.

Targeted Objective: E.g. These 5 students will achieve 40% growth of standards 1, 2, 3, 4.

For the 1st year of implement-ation, teachers with IGM data are responsible for these objectives for only ONE class

rise summative scoring
RISE: summative scoring

4-- HIGHLY EFFECTIVE (HE): Consistently exceeds expectations

3—EFFECTIVE (E): Consistently meets expectations

2—NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (NI): Room for growth in meeting expectations

1—INEFFECTIVE (I): Consistently fails to meet expectations

Final Score Highly Effective: 3.5 – 4.0 points Effective: 2.5 – 3.49 points

Ranges: Needs Improvement: 1.75 – 2.49 points Ineffective: 1.0 – 1.74 points

rise resources
RISE resources
  • Indiana Department of Education:
    • RISE Evaluation and Development System: Evaluator and Teacher Handbook, Version 1.0.
    • RISE Evaluation and Development System: Student Learning Objectives Handbook.
  • RISE Teacher Modules (Series of short videos)
    • Email [email protected]
  • Central Indiana Education Service Center (CIESC)

Multiple Career Paths

Ongoing Applied Professional Growth

Elements of Success

Instructionally Focused Accountability

Performance-Based Compensation

tap rubric domains
TAP: Rubric domains

Instructionally Focused Accountability

tap observation cycle
TAP: observation cycle

Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which means that everyone receives feedback from multiple sources


A teacher’s role determines the weight attributed to each domain in the TAP Rubric

tap performance based compensation
TAP: performance-based compensation

Performance-Based Compensation

  • Bonus awards distributed in addition to regular salaries.
  • Based on the amount of growth students make in one school year.
  • Indiana TAP schools are allocated $2500/year for each teacher’s compensation plan, but teachers can earn more/ less.
  • Data is only collected for students who have been in the TAP school for at least 126 school days
tap resources
Tap resources
  • Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL), University of Indianapolis:
    • TAP System Overview
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Indiana TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement
    • TAP Implementation Manual
  • CELL, University of Indianapolis
2 more models see handouts
2 more models (see handouts)

McREL Teacher Evaluation System

(ISTA recommended)

PAR: Peer Assistance and Review

A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The Consulting

Teacher’s Role:

A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The PAR Panel:

The Toledo Plan:

Professional Growth System: Teacher Level:

in tass process
  • Indiana Teacher Appraisal and Support System
    • A process to guide districts and stakeholders through key decision points in the creation of a system that assesses and supports effective teaching.
    • Not an evaluation model
in tass process resources
  • IN Teacher Appraisal System & Support (IN-TASS)
  • Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) Policy Brief (forthcoming!)
  • Center on Education and Lifelong Learning (CELL), IU Bloomington
resources online
Resources online
  • Download soon!
  • Your feedback is important to us!