Models of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems

1. Models of Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems Laura Goe, Ph.D. Research Scientist, ETS Principal Investigator, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality June/July 2010

2. Minnesota • Enacted by Minnesota Legislature in July 2005 • Voluntary program that allows local districts and exclusive representatives of the teachers to design and collectively bargain a plan that meets the five components of the law • Five components under Q Comp include: Career ladder/Advancement Options, Job-embedded Professional Development, Teacher Evaluation, Performance Pay, and an Alternative Salary Schedule  • St Francis Independent School District • Each annual review based on • 4 observations • Teacher-generated evidence of improved student performance

3. Austin Independent School District Student Learning Objectives: • Teachers determine two SLOs for the semester/year • One SLO must address all students, other may be targeted • Use broad array of assessments • Assess student needs more directly • Align classroom, campus, and district expectations • Aligned to state standards/campus improvement plans • Based on multiple sources of student data • Assessed with pre and post assessment • Targets of student growth • Peer collaboration

4. Rubric for student learning objectives

5. Rubric for student learning objectives (cont’d)

6. Washington DC’s IMPACT (an example of a CTES) • The recently implemented IMPACT outlines 3 ways it will improve teaching: • Clear expectations that detail exactly what is expected in terms of teacher performance • Clear feedback • Three assessment cycles for maximum feedback • In-person assessment conferences • Web-based (can review ratings & written comments) • Growth plans noting strengths, growth areas, and next steps for professional development

7. IMPACT sorts teachers into groups that are evaluated differently • Group 1: general ed teachers for whom value-added data can be generated • Group 2: general ed teachers for whom value-added data cannot be generated • Group 3: special education teachers • Group 4: non-itinerant English Language Learner (ELL) teachers and bilingual teachers • Group 5: itinerant ELL teachers • Etc…

8. IMPACT components for Group 1 • Individual Value-Added (IVA) = 50% of score • Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 40% of score • Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5% of score

9. IMPACT components for Group 2 • Teaching and Learning Framework (TLF) (measure of instructional expertise) = 80% of score • Non-Value-Added Student Achievement Growth (NVA) = 10% • Commitment to the School Community (CSC) (measure of the extent to which you support your colleagues and your school’s local initiatives) = 5% of score

10. School Value-Added (SVA) • “A sophisticated statistical measure of your school’s impact on student achievement, as measured by the DC CAS” = 5% of score • Schools receive an SVA score based on how well the students in the school performed overall compared with how they were predicted to performed (based on previous test scores) • Calculated using student factors

11. Factors used in calculating School Value-Added (SVA)

12. Core Professionalism • Core Professionalism (CP) “a measure of four basic professional requirements” • No unexcused absences • No unexcused late arrivals • Following the policies and procedures of your school (or program) and the school system • Interacting with colleagues, students, families, and community members in a respectful manner

13. Group 2 assessment rubric • 3 “cycles” of data collected & averaged/year • Highest level of rubric: • “Teacher has at least 1 high-quality source of evidence (i.e., one that is rigorous and reliable) demonstrating that approximately 90% or more of her/his students are on track to make significant learning growth (i.e., at least a year’s worth) towards mastery of the DCPS content standards over the course of the year.”

14. Explanation for 10% for test scores for Group 2 and others • “As a school system, we recognize that we still have a significant amount of work to do to establish norms for student achievement growth outside of the DC CAS grades and subjects. In recognition of this fact, we have decided to limit this component to just 10% of the overall assessment. As we develop clearer norms, we plan to increase this percentage.”

15. Georgia KEYS

16. Georgia Data Sources Examples of Data Sources

17. Non-tested subjects

18. Colorado’s Legislation (Senate Bill 191) • Under the bill passed in May • All teachers would be evaluated each year (instead of every 3 years for tenured teachers) • 50% of their performance on supervisors' reviews and the other half on student growth on standardized tests and other measures • Teachers could lose tenure • Johnson says “tests to evaluate non-CSAP subjects could be built or bought by the state”

19. Colorado (cont’d) • “An amendment to the legislation would allow districts to rate student growth differently in certain classrooms, including ones where students are highly mobile or where 95 percent of kids meet the definition of "high-risk." The exception also would apply to special-education classes.” Denver Post, 5/10/10 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14953971

20. Contact Information Laura Goe, Ph.D. P: 609-734-1076 E-Mail: lgoe@ets.org National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality 1100 17th Street NW, Suite 500Washington, DC 20036-4632877-322-8700 > www.tqsource.org