Rhode Island Model Teacher Evaluation & Support System Edition III

1. Rhode Island ModelTeacher Evaluation & Support SystemEdition III

2. Objectives Participants will: • Understand the architecture and key terms of the Professional Practice and Professional Responsibilities Rubrics • Become familiar with the Support and Development Process • Develop a common understanding of the purpose of setting SLOs • Understand where SLOs fit into the big picture of Educator Evaluation • Understand how a teacher’s final effectiveness rating is calculated

3. Agenda • Model Overview • Support & Development • Professional Practice • Professional Responsibilities • Student Learning Objectives • Calculating a Final Effectiveness Rating

4. Full Model at a Glance

5. Edition III: Evaluation and Support System Support System Evaluation Criteria Professional Growth Plan Evaluation Conferences Ongoing reflection and planning

6. Support and Development The Rhode Island Model is designed to support teacher development by: • Outlining high expectations that are clear and aligned to school, district, and state priorities; • Establishing a common vocabulary for meeting expectations; • Encouraging student-focused conversations to share best practices, and address common challenges; • Grounding teacher professional development in data-driven collaboration, conferencing, observation, and feedback to meet shared goals for student achievement; and • Providing a reliable process for educators tofocus practice and drive student learning. p. 8

7. Support and Development Three Evaluation Conferences • Beginning, Middle, and End-of Year Self assessment (optional) • optional reflective process • use prior evaluation data to analyze and identify priorities for professional growth plan

8. Support and Development Professional Growth Plan • One professional growth goal required (minimum) • Goal(s) within a plan can span more than one school year, however, the activities and benchmarks for the goal should be identified for each year • Clear action steps and benchmarks for meeting goal • Aligned to the components within the teacher professional practice or professional responsibilities rubric • Mid-Year Conference provides a formal opportunity for the teacher and evaluator to review the Professional Growth Plan and make adjustments, if necessary Performance Improvement Planfor teachers rated as Developing or Ineffective, or who are in need of targeted support anytime during the school year • EPSS facilitates the conferencing and goal setting processes, and enables users to upload evidence related to professional growth plan Flexibility Factor: Schools and districts may determine that a school-wide approach for one professional growth goal is preferable. It is also important that teachers are able to set individual goals designed to meet their professional development goals. p. 9

9. Edition III: Professional Practice Evaluation Criteria • Research based • Improves transparency • Observation rubric p. 10

10. Professional Practice Rubric at a Glance p. 39

11. Architecture of Edition III Rubrics Domain Component Title Component Description Elements Indicators p. 41

12. Architecture of the Rubric (cont.) Critical Attributes Possible Examples Levels Of Performance

13. Edition III: Professional Responsibilities Evaluation Criteria

14. Professional Responsibilities Architecture: At a Glance Appendix 4: Teacher Professional Responsibilities Rubric p. 57

15. Professional Responsibilities Architecture: Rubric Structure Domain and Component Component Description Elements and Indicators Performance Level Descriptions Critical Attributes Possible Examples

16. Assessing Professional Responsibilities • All of the components can be seen in action. • Evaluators should maintain notes that serve as evidence of components seen in action. • A few components may benefit from artifact review, including: PR 7 and 8 Planning (e.g., lesson and unit plans), and PR 2 Communication (e.g., a parent log). • The focus should be on quality rather than quantity. • All artifacts should be clearly connected to the performance descriptors of one or more of the components in the rubric. • One artifact could be used to demonstrate proficiency on more than one component of the rubric. p. 12

17. Edition II: Student Learning Evaluation Criteria

18. Student Learning Objectives Framing A Student Learning Objective is a long term, measureable, academic goal that educators set for students. The purpose of an SLO is to measure students’ growth over the course of an academic term. Student Learning Objectives consist of content standards, evidence, and targets: • The content standards can be CCSS, GSEs/GLEs, or other national standards • The evidence is the assessment(s) used to measure student progress/mastery • The target is the numerical goal for student progress/mastery, based on available prior data p. 13

19. Student Learning Objective Framing Instructional Coherence Student Learning Objectives are not a disconnected initiative. Rather, they bring together all the essential aspects of instruction. Curriculum, standards, data, and the CAS inform high quality SLOs

20. Alignment of Student Learning Objectives • Student Learning Objectives should be horizontally and vertically aligned, when applicable. • Horizontal Alignment is when all teachers in a grade level collaborate to set SLOs • Vertical Alignment is when SLOs build on one another across a school, reflecting the scope of the larger curriculum and comprehensive assessment system from grade to grade or course to course

21. 3 Types of Alignment • Direct Alignment- the focus of the objective statement, targets, and evidence sources are shared. The teacher’s SLOs mirror the building administrator’s SLOs. • Supportive Alignment- the content or skills addressed in the teacher’s SLO relates to the content or skills of the building administrator’s SLO, but is not identical. • No Alignment- the teacher’s SLO authentically reflects the most important content or skills of his/her discipline and grade level, but do not align with the building administrator’s SLO.

22. Anatomy of a Student Learning Objective Student Learning Objectives include: • Objective Statement • Rationale • Aligned Standards • Students • Interval of Instruction • Baseline Data • Target(s) • Rationale for Target(s) • Evidence Source • Administration • Scoring Priority of Content Rigor of Target Quality of Evidence p. 15

23. Timeline of the SLO Process

24. Edition III: Final Effectiveness Rating Evaluation Criteria

25. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PF Score Final Rating Calculating a Final Effectiveness Rating Educators will receive one of four final Effectiveness ratings - Highly Effective, Effective, Developing, or Ineffective p. 31

26. Professional Practice Rating Example

27. Professional Practice Scoring Bands Professional Practice p. 32

28. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PF Score Final Rating STEP 2: Calculate a Professional Foundations Rating

29. Professional Responsibilities Rating Example

30. Professional Responsibilities Scoring Bands Professional Responsibilities p. 33

31. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PR Score Final Rating STEP 3: Combine Professional Practice and Professional Foundations

32. PP and PR Matrix p. 33

33. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PR Score Final Rating STEP 4: Calculate a Student Learning Objective Rating

34. SLO Scoring Process

35. Individual SLO Scoring Guidance p. 27

36. Sets of Student Learning Objectives Ratings p. 29

37. Step 2: Scoring a Set of SLOs Scoring Tables p. 36

38. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PR Score Final Rating STEP 5: Rhode Island Growth Model Rating (when applicable)

39. Professional Practice (PP) Rating Professional Responsibilities (PR) Rating Student Learning Objective Rating RI Growth Model Rating (When available) Student Learning Score PP and PR Score Final Rating STEP 6: Combine Scores to Determine a Final Effectiveness Rating

40. Final Effectiveness Rating Matrix p. 35

41. For more information, resources, and to download detailed documents, visit: http://www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/EducatorEvaluationQuestions? Comments? E-mail us at:EdEval@ride.ri.gov