Teacher Evaluation Pilot Analysis: Insights from Implementation and Compensation Initiatives

1. An implementer’s Perspective: An evaluation and compensation pilot October 17, 2012 Richard Bowman, Ph.D.

2. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

3. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

4. Context • Reform efforts • Teacher Evaluation Task Force (TETF) • Race To The Top (RTTT) • Planned legislation • Prior legislation • Shared urgency • Four schools • SIG application • “Funds have been set aside to support performance pay.” • $1,000 per teacher assignedto the school. (~ $300K) • Strategic Data Project Data Fellows • Highly trained and capable personnel pressed into service

5. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

6. The Proposal • Performance compensation • Teacher evaluation • Pilot program • Multiple measures • Student Surveys • Observations • School Value Added • Individual Value Added • PLC Student Learning Goals (SLOs) • Individual Student Learning Goals (SLOs) • In-depth research

7. The Proposal at 50,000 feet

8. The Proposal at 10,000 feet

9. Student Surveyson the ground I wonder who translated this?

10. Student Surveyson the ground

11. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

12. Proposal Results

15. Most Valued: Student Surveys

21. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

22. Union Leader Buy-in (Negotiations) • Voluntary participation • Student Learning Goals (SLOs) • Hold-harmless evaluation • Bonus, not pay • Percentages • Ferguson’s research

23. Teacher Buy-in • Emphasize shared background • Time – personal time spent • Focus on concerns • Negative consequences • Time taken • Talk context • Responsiveness • Transparency

24. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

25. Logistics - Survey • One friendly Denver SDP fellow • Two local SDP fellows • Four schools • Eight survey versions • 16 survey days • 93 participants • ~20,000 student surveys • Blank photocopied surveys • Rough class count stuffed in envelopes • Envelopes sorted by period and teacher • ~20,000 student barcode labels • Cut by guillotine and bagged by class period

26. Logistics - Software • Excel (Report production) • Lookup tables • VB Macros • RDBMail (Outlook Integration) • PDF generation • Google Docs/Drive (Collaboration) • Stata (Data analysis and management) • Remark Office OMR (Optical recognition)

27. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

28. Student Surveyson the ground

29. Metrics • Survey • Average responses assuming a 1 - 5 valued scale. • Average for each of the “Seven Cs” • Composite average of the “Seven Cs” • Reporting • Average for each of the “Seven Cs” and composite • Individual • School-wide • Pilot • Histogram of the composite • Top two relative strengths and weaknesses • No item-level detail • Evaluation • Thirds of composite score within school

30. Metrics • Value-added Model • Includes student, teacher, and school covariates • 1-year estimates for both teachers and schools • Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (BLUP) aka. Bayesian or shrunken estimates • Relative to (normalized) district-wide student test scores • By year, standard deviations • Random effects model estimated by REML • Estimates produced four times, based on SCA and SBA • Reporting • Limited numbers • Concern about meaningfulness of numbers • Conversion to months of learning • Confidence level • Visual • Range of months of learning in text • Histogram • School estimate and teacher estimates • Evaluation • Three possible ratings • Significantly above, significantly below, and not significantly different than average • 95% significance

31. Metrics • Student Learning Goals • Teacher developed and measured and reported • Individual goals and PLC goals • “Reach” goal – goal that would be a stretch to achieve • “Expected” goal – goal expected to be achieved • Evaluation • Three possible ratings • Met Reach Goal, Met Expected Goal, Did not meet either goal

32. Metrics • Observations • Administrator evaluates teachers based on three domains of Danielson’s FFT • Reported electronically • Ratings converted into a four-point scale and averaged • Evaluation • Teachers reported whether or not observation happened

33. Context • Proposal • Results • Buy-in • Logistics • Metrics • Issues

34. Observation Data

35. Issues • Training and Professional Development • Observation • Principal time • No consequences • Length • Student Learning Goals • Ensuring rigor and relevance • Professional development • Surveys • Special Populations • Proctoring • Value-added • Understanding, fairness, and use • School-wide evaluations • Universally disliked • Joint or shared evaluations • Largely disliked

36. Issues • How can this information inform instruction? • Evaluation Metrics • Selection bias due to volunteers • Relative classifications • With or without base year, creates problems • Absolute classification

37. Thank you!Questions or Comments?