Teacher Evaluation in Newark:Evaluator Training • August 21 or 22, 2013
The Irreplaceables explores retention through the experience of the nation’s best teachers, who urban schools desperately need to keep. Who Are the Irreplaceables? The “Irreplaceables” are teachers so successful that they are nearly impossible to replace. Estimates of Irreplaceables percentage based on teachers with value-added or growth data; District A high performers: 21%; District B high performers: 20%; District C high performers: 20%; District D high performers: 18%; Student impact estimates calculated following the methodology of Hahnel and Jackson (2012). Source: District data from SY 2009-10 and SY 2010-11.
When an Irreplaceable leaves a low-performing school, the school is almost guaranteed to hire a less-effective replacement. Likelihood of Replacing a High Performer with a Teacher of Similar Quality When a great teacher leaves a school, it can take 11 hires to find one teacher of comparable quality. Estimates based on teachers with value-added or growth data; Low performing schools include schools in the lowest quintile of proficiency by school level; Percentage of high-performing potential replacements in all schools - District A: 12%; District B: 17%; District C: 15%; District D: 15%; Low-performing schools - District A: 12% ; District B: 10%; District C: 3%; District D: 9%. Source: District data from SY 2008-09 and SY 2009-10.
Yet most schools retain Irreplaceables and low performers at fairly similar rates. School Retention Rates by Teacher Performance, 2009-10 Struggling teachers remain for too long: Most have more than 9 years of experience and plan to stay for at least another 10 years. Chart: School retention defined as teachers remaining at their school from one year to the next. Bottom statement: Median years of experience 9-10 years across districts; Percentage planning to stay more than 10 years 48-62% across districts. Source: District data from SY 2008-09 through SY 2010-11
Low performers rarely improve significantly. Even three years later, most perform worse than the average first-year teacher. Performance Comparison of New Teachers and Low Performers over Three Years 40 percent of teachers with 7+ years of experience are less effective than the average first-year teacher Chart: Median percentile ranks by population scores in District C; Populations defined in 2007-08. Bottom statement: District A: 44% veterans less effective; District C: 39% veterans less effective. Source: District data from SY 2008-09 through SY 2010-11
There are simple, low-cost steps principals can take that double the time Irreplaceables plan to remain at their schools. Low-Cost Retention Strategies for Irreplaceables Top teachers who experience two or more of these retention strategies plan to keep teaching at their schools for nearly twice as long (2-6 more years). Low-cost retention strategies defined as those that influence planned school retention of Irreplaceables. Source: District and survey data.
However, Irreplaceables report receiving little recognition or attention at the school level – often on par with the lowest performers. Teachers Reporting Recognition at School Principals used 7 of 8 top retention strategies at similar rates for high and low performers. Source: District B data and survey data. Trends confirmed across districts.
The Framework for Effective Teaching is at the core of the evaluation system
Our goal today: Ensure all are ready to implement the teacher evaluation system as a tool for differentiated management • Today, we will: • Reflect on SY12-13 and discuss what is changing for SY13-14 • View instruction and norm on the framework • Conduct a deep dive into the student goal setting process • Discuss details of evaluation requirements and prepare to implement as the school year begins
Activity: Think-Pair-Share • Reflecting on implementation of teacher evaluation this past year, write down: • 1 to 2 successes from this year • 1 to 2 challenges from this year • Turn to your neighbor and share what you wrote down
Quick Quiz • What percentage of our teachers received an annual evaluation by the end of the year?
Completion rates for observations, mid-years, and annuals evaluations were strong Confidential - Do Not Distribute
Completion rates for observations and evaluations are consistently high across networks Notes: Observation completion rates measured as percent of teachers with required number of observations; Central includes Office of Special Education, Early Childhood, Title I Office, Master Teachers, and anyone else evaluated by central office staff except staff on long term leave Confidential - Do Not Distribute Data current as of 7/1/2013
Completion rates for annual evaluations and observations less consistent across schools • 52 schools have annual evaluation or completion rates above 95% Note: Only 1 school has an annual evaluation completion rate below 80% and only 6 schools have observation completion rates below 80% Data current as of 7/1/2013
Quick Quiz • What percentage of teachers in the EWPS pool did not receive a rating in 2012-13?
Teachers in the EWPS pool receive lower ratings compared to the district distribution • 29% of teachers in the 2012-13 EWPS pool (and 21% of teachers projected 2013-14 EWPS) did not receive annual evaluations
Teachers on long-term leave have lower ratings compared to other teachers • 11% of teachers on long-term leave have completed annual evaluations • 23% have the required number of observations and 26% have been observed at least once
Quick Quiz • What percentage of observations had a partially effective rating? • What percentage of annual reviews had a partially effective rating?
Quick Quiz • What was the percentage of teachers rated highly effective last year (2011-12)? • What was the percentage of teachers rated highly effective this year (2012-13)?
Compared to last year, % HE annuals decreased and % PE annuals increased
Ratings vary even more across schools: Some schools still rated few teachers as partially effective or ineffective • Observations: • 27 schools had no ineffective observation ratings. • 3 schools had no partially effective or ineffective observation ratings. • 34 schools assigned more than 80% of observation ratings in the top two categories. • Annual Evaluations: • 28 schools had no ineffective annual ratings. • 4 schools had no partially effective or ineffective annual ratings. • 37 schools assigned more than 80% of evaluation ratings in the top two categories.
Quick Quiz • What competencies receive the greatest proportion of partially effective and ineffective ratings?
On Annuals, Competencies 2 and 4 have the highest share of PE and IE ratings
Ratings distribution is fairly consistent across different evaluator types (slightly higher for DCs)
Ratings are slightly higher both from observations and mid-years to annual evaluations Note: Percentages calculated as percent of row total; red numbers indicate inflation, blue numbers indicate deflation
The five competencies set the standard for teacher practice in NPS Students sustain focus on a specific objective that moves them toward mastery. Instructional strategies challenge all students and provide multiple pathways to mastery. A learning-focused environment of shared high expectations promotes mastery. Students show evidence of, and teacher monitors, growth. The teacher demonstrates commitment to excellence and to the professional growth of his/her school and peers.
Framework language changes to increase clarity and user-friendliness 12-13 version 13-14 version Simplified to use either “and” or “or” to make rating these indicators easier and more consistent Language was changed to make distinctions clearer Indicator 3e revised to include the expectation that the teacher is a model of high expectations • Some indicators used the phrase “and/or”, particularly in PE or I ratings • The distinction between performance levels in some indicators wasn’t very clear • Indicator 3e did not include reference to the teacher modeling high expectations
Framework language changes to increase clarity and user-friendliness 12-13 version 13-14 version This phrase in Highly Effective was removed Competency 4 over-time indicators were revised to better align with the new student learning goals in the IPDP. • Highly Effective in indicator 3b asked for students to demand persistence of each other.
Most remaining content of the Framework did not change. But does require additional training to ensure consistency across evaluators. • All/nearly all, most, some, few • Calling out a teachers’ physical classroom space • Explicitly listing professional standards • Making an explicit description of attendance metrics in Competency 5
Let’s reflect on the changes to the framework and evaluation system this year • Consider each competency and the changes (both in language and evidence collection) between 2012 and 2013 • On your handout • Note what these changes signify about the intent of the competency • Note what these changes signify about the implementation of the competency • Share your thoughts with your table mates • Be prepared to share your group’s thoughts with the larger group about one competency
Lesson Design & Focus Rigor & Inclusiveness Culture of Achievement Student Progress Towards Mastery Commitment to Personal & Collective Excellence This year, there are many ways to collect evidence to evaluate and support teachers What Can Be Observed What Can Be Seen in Artifacts What Can Be Seen in Quantitative Data
Viewing instruction: • Using an observation template or your own method, transcribe what happens in the following teaching clip. • After you view the video, categorize your evidence and assign ratings on the NPS framework. Then, note your ratings on the flip charts at the front of the room. Video linked here
Let’s review our ratings and discuss Where are we aligned in ratings? Where are there outliers?What evidence can you share for these outlier ratings? What do we need to do to ensure we and our school leaders are aligned? What feedback would you give this teacher? What is the highest-leverage thing she could do to improve?
Main Takeaways • Competency 4 defines how we approach the use the assessment of student learning in teacher evaluation. • The Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP) is the way we will document how a teacher addresses Competency 4. • The IPDP requires setting student learning goals and teacher goalsrelated to those student learning goals. • The goal setting process in the IPDP documents what effective teachers already do. • The IPDP should serve as a communication tool for teachers and their administrators on goals. • The specificity of student goals should be determined by the strength of available tools and resources (e.g., curriculum, assessments). • The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has the same process as the IPDP for setting student learning goals and a more rigorous process for setting and tracking teacher goals. • All IPDPs and CAPs will be entered into an online system.
This year’s Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP): • Provides a tool for goal setting for teachers and administrators around both student learning goals and the teacher’s own development goals • Leverages over-time indicators and Common Core planning in the goals teachers set for students and themselves • Is a tool for teachers and administrators to communicate about goals and growth areas throughout the year
The IPDP content includes: • Student Learning Plan: • Areas of Focus • Student End Points • Student Starting Points • Instructional Tools and Resources • Professional Growth Plan: • Growth Areas • Action Steps for Teachers Let’s review a sample IPDP form together
The IPDP form is created in the beginning of the year and examined at conferences throughout the year Goal-Setting Conference Observations and Conferences Annual Conference Mid-Year Conference Observations and Conferences
The final assessment of progress towards goals happens at the annual conference • Specifically, evaluators reflect their assessment of whether or not the teacher met his or her learning and professional development goals in the over-time indicators in Competency 4: • 4d. Using Data: Teacher tracks assessment data to understand each student’s progress toward mastery and uses results to guide planning and instruction • 4e. Understanding of Growth: Teacher can articulate specifically (and with evidence) whether or not each student has internalized grade-level standards and, if not, what s/he still needs to learn. • 4f. Progress Toward Goals: Data reflect that students are mastering the objectives of the focus areas, leading toward mastery of grade-level standards.
Teachers rated PE or I at the end of SY12-13 will have a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), which replaces their IPDP • The CAP includes 2 extra steps in setting professional development goals: • 1) Establishing metrics & processes to monitor progress • 2) Articulating the steps administrators will take to support teachers’ development • There are several follow-up steps required by state law • Additional observations • Mid-year conference • Observations by multiple observers • CAP is more robust to ensure that: • - Struggling teachers are getting the support they need and • -The district is collecting sufficient evidence to support tenure charges if necessary • How is the CAP different from the IPDP?