teacher evaluation panel n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Teacher Evaluation Panel PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Teacher Evaluation Panel

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 60

Teacher Evaluation Panel - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 97 Views
  • Uploaded on

Teacher Evaluation Panel. Tuesday, February 12, 2013. Panelists. Glenn McClain Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 (CO) Jan Rose Petro Colorado Department of Education Patricia Hardy Pennsylvania Department of Education Linda Rocks Bossier Parish School System (LA).

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Teacher Evaluation Panel' - joella


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
teacher evaluation panel

Teacher Evaluation Panel

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

panelists
Panelists
  • Glenn McClain

Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 (CO)

  • Jan Rose Petro

Colorado Department of Education

  • Patricia Hardy

Pennsylvania Department of Education

  • Linda Rocks

Bossier Parish School System (LA)

slide3

Colorado’s

State Model Evaluation System

Glenn McClain, Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7

Jan Rose Petro, Colorado Department of Education

agenda
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
slide5

Together We Can

VisionAll students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens capable of succeeding in a globally competitive workforce.

MissionThe mission of CDE is to shape, support, and safeguard a statewide education system that prepares students for success in a globally competitive world.

slide6

Students

Successful students

  • Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and workforce ready.
  • Increase achievement for all students and close achievement gaps.
  • Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary education and the workforce.
  • Increase national and international competitiveness for all students.

Great teachers and leaders

  • Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators.
  • Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness of new educators.
  • Eliminate the educator equity gap.

Outstanding schools and districts

  • Increase school and district performance.
  • Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array of high quality school choices for students.

Best education system in the nation

  • Lead the nation in policy, innovation, and positive outcomes for students.
  • Operate with excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness to become the best SEA in the nation.
  • Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE.

Educators

Schools/ Districts

State

GOALS

slide7

PowerPoint Template

Students

Educators

Schools/

Districts

agenda1
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
guiding principles of state evaluation system

Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.

The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.

The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.

The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process.

Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.

Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System
slide12

2.

Annual Orientation

1.

Training

9.

Goal-Setting and Performance Planning

3.

Self-Assessment

8.

Final Ratings

4.

Review of Annual Goals and Performance Plan

Educator

Evaluation Cycle

7.

End-of-Year Review

5.

Mid-Year Review

6.

Evaluator Assessment

agenda2
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
slide14

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

Framework for System to Evaluate Principals

Definition of Principal Effectiveness

Quality Standards

I. Strategy

II. Instruction

VI. External Development

IV. Human Resources

V. Management

III. Culture

VII. Student Growth

50% Professional Practice Standards50% Student Growth Measures

Number and Percentage Other Measures of Teachers Aligned with CDE Guidelines

Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance?

School Performance Other Measures

Framework Aligned with CDE Guidelines

Weighting:

Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards

Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?

Performance Standards

IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective

slide15

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers

Definition of Teacher Effectiveness

Quality Standards

I. Know Content

II. Establish Environment

V. Demonstrate Leadership

III. Facilitate Learning

IV. Reflect on Practice

VI. Student Growth

50% Professional Practice Standards50% Student Growth Measures

Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with

CDE Guidelines

Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance?

State Other Assessments Other Measures

Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines

Match of test to teaching assignments

Weighting:

Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards

Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?

Performance Standards

IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective

Appeals Process

application of quality standards
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.
  • Some districts are using their own locally developed standards after completing a crosswalk of their standards to the state’s quality standards and elements. These districts must provide assurances that they are meeting all additional requirements of SB 10-191.
principal evaluations
Principal Evaluations

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

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

Quality Standard VII:

VII. Leadership around student academic growth

teacher evaluations
Teacher Evaluations
  • 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.

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.

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

agenda3
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
components of the educator rubrics
Components of the Educator Rubrics

Rating levels

Quality Standard

Element that aligns with standard

Professional Practices

slide24

Courtney

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.

slide25

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.

slide26

Teacher Quality Standards

Performance

Rating Levels

Elements of the Standard

Professional Practices

= Observable in Classroom

Evidence Provided by Artifacts

Examples of Artifacts

Evaluator Comments

Summary of Ratings for the Standard

Teacher’s Response to Evaluation

agenda4
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
pilot period
Pilot Period

Is used to develop, identify and/or test

the following:

  • Principal and teacher rubrics
  • Measures of student academic growth
  • Method to collect teacher input for principal evaluations
  • Method to collect student and family perception data
  • Method to aggregate measures and assign final evaluation ratings
  • CDE monitoring methods
agenda5
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
agenda6
Agenda
  • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities
  • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System
  • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators
  • Educator Rubrics
  • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot
  • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191
  • Successes and Challenges
sea successes and challenges
SEA Successes and Challenges

Successes

Challenges

Variance in capacity at local level

Change management (time burden high)

Inter-rater agreement across state system users

Measuring student learning

Attributing student learning

  • Focus on intent (rather than compliance)
  • Conversations about teaching and learning
  • Flexibility
  • Collaboration with associations
  • Coordination with BOCES to train regions
  • 27 Colorado pilot districts
lea successes and challenges
LEA Successes and Challenges

Successes

Challenges

Time

Availability of resources in time to use with staff

Comprehensiveness and length of new evaluation

System and process unknowns

  • Train the Trainer model
    • Administrative team
    • Faculty
  • Previous improvement work is complementary
contact information
Contact Information
  • Katy Anthes

anthes_k@cde.state.co.us

  • Toby King

king_t@cde.state.co.us

  • Michael Gradoz

gradoz_m@cde.state.co.us

  • Britt Wilkenfeld

wilkenfeld_b@cde.state.co.us

  • Jean Williams

williams_j@cde.state.co.us

  • Dawn Paré

pare_d@cde.state.co.us

  • Courtney Cabrera

cabrera_c@cde.state.co.us

  • Amy Skinner

skinner_a@cde.state.co.us

  • Katie Lamslams_k@cde.state.co.us

For more information, please visit: www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness

project goal
Project Goal
  • To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth.

The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.

slide38

How Did We Get Here?

  • June 30, 2012, Act 82, Section 1123 of the PublicSchool Code was passed.
  • Permitted use of student achievement data to be usedas part of the teacher evaluation system.
  • Established the components and weighting to be included in the new rating tool.
building level data
Building Level Data
  • PA has developed a School Performance Profile for each school in PA LEAs.
  • Based upon multiple data sources, all of which have been required by PDE in the past – no new reports.
  • Includes indicators of Academic Achievement, Closing the Achievement Gap, Academic Growth, and other academic indicators.
  • Each school receives a score based on these factors and their weighting.
teacher specific data
Teacher Specific Data
  • PVAAS data
  • 3-year rolling average to reduce “noise”
slide43

Non-Teaching Professional Employees:

Who Are They?

  • Dental Hygienist
  • Elementary/Secondary School Counselors
  • Home and School Visitors
  • Instructional Technology Specialist
  • School Nurse
  • School Psychologist
slide44

Non Teaching Professional Employee

Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

Effective 2014-2015 SY

  • Observation/Evidence
  • Danielson Framework Domains
  • Planning and Preparation
  • Educational Environment
  • Delivery of Service
  • Professional Development

Student Performance of All Students in the School Building in which the Nonteaching Professional Employee is Employed

District Designed Measures and Examinations

Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests

Industry Certification Examinations

Student Projects Pursuant to Local Requirements

Student Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements

challenges
Challenges
  • Collecting accurate data from LEAs
  • Building an accurate Student/Teacher/Course linkage system.
educator effectiveness the other half an lea data manager perspective
Educator Effectiveness – The Other HalfAn LEA Data Manager Perspective

NCES Forum, February 2013

Linda Rocks, Bossier Parish Schools

remember when
Remember When…
  • Compliance
  • Filling in cells in grant templates
  • FOIA requests
educator evaluation
Educator Evaluation

www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/teaching

inaugural year
Inaugural Year

Pilot

Inception

Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass

inaugural year1
Inaugural Year

Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass

data pipeline then now
Data Pipeline…Then & Now

State Program/Policy Office

State Program/Policy Office

State Data Division

LEA Administration

LEA Data Managers

LEA Administration

what they did well
What they did well
  • Similar design for both CVR & HCIS
  • Single security login for both CVR & HCIS
  • Created state network support teams by region
  • Created local admin roles for both CVR & HCIS
where it could improve
Where it could improve
  • Involvement of SEA/LEA data managers
  • Network support team member with data background

Files…

without Educator ID

data use1
Data Use

OMG

IKR