slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 110 Views
  • Uploaded on

Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012. PEAC’s decisions thus far. Principles for Teacher Evaluation Guidelines State best practices (discussed at Dec 20 PEAC meeting) Agreement on Connecticut’s design approach – minimum requirements and state model. PEAC Principles for Evaluation Guidelines .

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

Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012


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
peac s decisions thus far
PEAC’s decisions thus far
  • Principles for Teacher Evaluation Guidelines
  • State best practices (discussed at Dec 20 PEAC meeting)
  • Agreement on Connecticut’s design approach – minimum requirements and state model
peac principles for evaluation guidelines
PEAC Principles for Evaluation Guidelines
  • Primary purpose of evaluation is to strengthen individual and collective practices in order to improve student learning...
  • Evaluation systems should…include multiple indicators of student academic growth and development while taking into account measurable student characteristics…
  • Evaluation systems should be standards-based using the Common Core of Teaching, state adopted leadership standards, etc.
  • When weaknesses are identified, the educator should seek resources and support, including peer assistance and resource opportunities and support provided by the district…
  • Local district evaluation plans should be developed collaboratively by educators and administrators…
principles for evaluation guidelines cont
Principles for Evaluation Guidelines (cont.)
  • Professional learning plans should reflect the needs of individuals and groups of educators identified through the evaluation process…
  • Evaluation systems should include opportunities for formative, summative and self-evaluation.
  • Districts should provide regular and ongoing professional learning opportunities and allocate time for educators and evaluators to collaborate to promote effective implementation of the evaluation plan.
  • Evaluation plans should include a process for resolving disputes in cases in which the educator and evaluator disagree on goal-setting, formative or summative evaluation, and/or the improvement plan.
  • Districts should review and revise their evaluation plans at least every five years, using current research and best practice.
state best practices include
State best practices include:
  • 4 rating levels
  • Annual reviews for all teachers and administrators
  • Multiple indicators of student learning that are a significant part of teacher and administrator evaluations
  • Evaluations that provide teachers and administrators with useful feedback & results linked to professional development
  • Strong training for evaluators
  • A statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets regularly to provide implementation guidance
  • Pilot process or staggered implementation
minimum requirements and state model
Minimum requirements and state model
  • Agreement on a system design approach – establish minimum requirements for districts and design a state evaluation model
    • State will determine minimum requirements for district teacher and administrator evaluation systems
    • Districts will be permitted to develop evaluation systems, subject to minimum requirements, and with capacity support and review from the State Department of Education
    • State will develop model teacher and administrator systems that districts may adopt as desired
    • Districts that cannot come to agreement or do not establish systems by a state-determined deadline will use the state model
a possible roadmap moving forward
A possible roadmap moving forward
  • Agreement on general design approach - Completed 12/20
  • Determine minimum criteria and process requirements - January
    • What component types will be permitted?
    • What minimum weights for each component type will be required?
    • Will the minimum requirements specify processes (e.g., # of observations, who conducts observations, who trains evaluators)?
  • Determine implementation requirements - February
    • When must districts submit systems to state for feedback & approval?
    • When will the state model go in effect for districts without local systems?
    • What training requirements for evaluators should be specified?
    • Should the state consider a pilot program?
    • Form an “implementation working group” to address these questions?

-- continued on next slide --

a possible roadmap moving forward cont
A possible roadmap moving forward (cont.)
  • Assist in development of model for teachers, administrators, & pupil services staff – February/March
    • Components
    • Weighting
    • Working groups
  • Guidance on process for how the state models will work – Feb/Mar
    • What processes will be prescribed? (who conducts observations, are conferences required, differences based on experience and effectiveness ratings, etc.)
    • What tools are needed? (goal setting materials, scoring rubrics, etc.)
  • Determine review process for draft state models – April/May
    • State reviews draft teacher, principal, & pupil service models
    • Collect educator feedback on state models
    • How could feedback from pilot districts be used to improve systems?
    • NOTE: State Board iterative feedback and adoption process
draft timeline
Draft Timeline

April/May - Educator feedback on state models

February - Working groups convene and begin developing state models & implementation plans

March/April - review of draft state models

July - Due date for state model development and adoption

January – State determines minimum requirements for district systems

goal for today recommended components
Goal for today: recommended components
  • Component types will become the backbone of minimum guidelines for districts and the eventual state models
  • Today, PEAC will discuss evaluation components and consider what teacher systems should include
  • We will also preview principal components today, but are adding additional expertise for the next meeting
general component types for teachers
General component types for teachers
  • Several types of components are common in teacher evaluation systems:
    • Observations of teacher practice
    • Indicators of professional responsibility
    • Peer feedback
    • Student feedback
    • Parent feedback
    • Multiple indicators of student learning

Source: Education First analysis

observations of teacher practice
Observations of teacher practice
  • Observations of classroom instruction are a near-universal component of evaluation systems
  • Observations use rubrics to gauge alignment of instruction to professional teaching standards
    • Many states and districts adopt rubrics based on one or more national frameworks, such as Charlotte Danielson or Robert Marzano
    • Other states, like Colorado, develop their own standards
  • Other details pertaining to observations, including:
    • Use of a particular rubric aligned with the CT Teaching Standards
    • Number of observations each year, and variations for subgroups
    • Timing and scheduling of observations
    • Parties responsible for observations (principals and master teachers)
    • Requirements for pre- and/or post-observation conferences
    • Requirements for support and PD that result from evaluations

Source: Education First analysis; State of the States. NCTQ. (2010).; Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011)

principles for teacher practice observations
Principles for teacher practice observations
  • State to ensure that different teacher observation rubrics that are used are aligned to Connecticut’s teacher standards
  • (1) a minimum number of observations, (2) who conducts observations, and (3) details on conferences
  • A state teacher model working group to customize a model observation rubric
  • Evaluator training to focus on that one observation rubric
indicators of professional responsibility
Indicators of professional responsibility
  • These indicators capture a teacher’s contribution to the school culture
  • Example – Rhode Island educators are rated on four core Professional Responsibilities categories:
    • Collaborate and Contribute to the School Community
    • Believe in and Advocate for Students
    • Create a Culture of Respect
    • Exercise Professional Judgment and Development
  • Teachers in Washington, DC Public Schools are scored on a rubric of five aspects of community involvement and are given a core professionalism rating that considers items such as unexcused absences

Source: Education First analysis; The Rhode Island Model: Teacher Guidebook 2011-2012. Rhode Island Department of Education. (2011); “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook 2010-2011.” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools

peer feedback
Peer feedback
  • Teachers in some schools complete surveys on their peers’ core values and contributions to the mission of the school
  • Districts will be permitted to design and include peer review systems in Colorado
  • “Peer Validation” is used in New Haven to confirm scores for teachers on the low and high ends of the rating scale

Source: Education First analysis; “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook 2010-2011.” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools; New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010)

parent and student feedback
Parent and student feedback
  • Districts may elect to use surveys to measure parent and student perception in Colorado
  • Gates Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study has shown that certain student survey responses are highly predictive of strong student outcomes
  • As part of the goal setting process in Ohio, teachers may be asked to analyze results from student and parent surveys

Source: Education First analysis; Colorado State Board of Education Rules adopted November 2011; Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Model Packet draft 7/13/11

multiple indicators of student learning
Multiple indicators of student learning
  • A variety of items are used as indicators of student learning
    • Best practice dictates incorporating multiple indicators of growth into the student learning component
    • Multiple indicators ensure effective evaluations for all teachers, not just those in select subjects and grades
  • Effective systems use multiple indicators that are fair, valid, reliable and useful
    • No single indicator is completely able to account for student learning or a teacher’s unique contribution
    • Together, multiple indicators capture a range of teaching behaviors

Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

characteristics of strong student learning indicators
Characteristics of strong student learning indicators
  • Fairindicators apply to educators uniformly, are free of bias, and are transparent to those being evaluated
  • Validindicators are instruments that are appropriate to measure what they purport to measure
  • Reliableindicators reveal an accurate representation of what is being assessed, and these results are consistent and repeatable
  • Usefulindicators result in relevant feedback to educators, and should inform professional development plans as well as human resource decisions

Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

selecting multiple indicators of student learning
Selecting multiple indicators of student learning
  • In selecting multiple indicators, states commonly require a mix of indicators suitable for comparing student learning across the state and indicators developed locally (TN, NY)
  • Many states include safeguards for teachers around student characteristics, attendance, and mobility (like in the CT legislation) to ensure consistent student engagement over a meaningful period of time
  • Illinois divides indicator types (see Appendix) into three categories and requires use of at least two indicators

Source: Education First analysis; Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

examples of student learning indicators
Examples of student learning indicators

Source: Measuring student growth: At a glance. The Center for Public Education. (2007); Student Performance Assessment in Diversified Teacher Compensation Systems. Education Commission of the States. (2007); 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009)

components for principals
Components for principals
  • Similar categories, similar emphases but schoolwide
  • Additional support for the process of establishing guidelines for principal evaluations is on the way
  • New Leaders for New Schools suggests evaluations of principals should focus on their success increasing student learning and teacher effectiveness, with assessment of demonstration of key leadership actions as well
  • Districts in Colorado will be required to establish evaluations that balance student academic growth with professional practice
    • Practice will by evaluated by gauging teacher input, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher improvement

Source: Evaluating Principals: Balancing accountability with professional growth. New Leaders for New Schools; Power Point overview of Colorado’s State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

discussion of teacher evaluation components
Discussion of teacher evaluation components
  • Are there any component types not discussed today that you would like to add for our consideration?
  • Which component types would you like to recommend districts include in their systems?
  • We’ll discuss requiring certain components and minimum weights at our next meeting
next steps
Next steps
  • Discuss the value placed on different components (weights)
  • Consider additional minimum guidelines on process and implementation, including:
    • Observation rubrics
    • Permitted and/or required student learning indicator sources
    • Evaluator training
    • Implementation timelines and pilot question
  • Launch implementation and state model working groups
  • Reschedule the next meeting (no longer Jan 24)
contact information
Contact Information
  • John Luczak
    • john@educationfirstconsulting.com
    • 847-769-3290
  • Adam Petkun
    • adam@educationfirstconsulting.com
    • 541-513-4195
minimum requirements for teacher evaluations in colorado districts
Minimum requirements for teacher evaluations in Colorado districts

Evaluated using: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include additional measures.

  • Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data.

Quality Standards I-V:

I. Mastery of content

II. Establish learning environment

III. Facilitate learning

IV. Reflect on practice

V. Demonstrate leadership

Quality Standard VI:

VI. Responsibility for student academic growth

Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

minimum requirements for principal evaluations in colorado districts
Minimum requirements for principal evaluations in Colorado districts

50% Student Academic Growth

50% Professional Practice

Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth.

Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement.

Quality Standard VII:

VII. Leadership around student academic growth

Quality Standards I-VI:

I. Strategic leadership

II. Instructional leadership

III. School culture/equity leadership

IV. HR leadership

V. Managerial leadership

VI. External development leadership

Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

rhode island educator evaluation model key components
Rhode Island educator evaluation model – Key components
  • When fully implemented in the 2012-2013 school year, Rhode Island’s system will consist of the following components:

SOURCE: The Rhode Island Model: Guide to Evaluating Building Administrators and Teachers, 2011-2012

example of assessment categorization in illinois
Example of assessment categorization in Illinois

Image Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

illinois draft evaluation default model key components
Illinois draft evaluation default model – Key components
  • Formal and informal observations
  • Pre-observation meeting to review lesson plan
  • Post-observation meeting with self-reflection and evaluator feedback, with relevant evidence
  • “Demonstrable change in a student’s learning between two or more points in time”
    • Requires use of at least two indicators
    • Requires mix of indicator types (see last slide)
      • At least one Type III assessment
      • And at least one Type I or Type II (not ISAT or PSAE)
      • Or two Type III assessments

Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

new haven public schools key components
New Haven Public Schools – Key components
  • At the beginning of each year, teachers meet with their Instructional Manager (IM) to set goals in each category of the evaluation
  • Teachers are rated on a 1-5 scale for each component at the end of each year

SOURCE: New Haven Public Schools

multiple measures in new haven cont examples from selected teacher group types
Multiple measures in New Haven (cont.) - Examples from selected teacher group types

Source: New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010)