Human Resources: Teacher Evaluation Presentation at U of M Dearborn

1. Human Resources: Teacher Evaluation Presentation at U of M Dearborn October 30, 2012 BY GLENN MALEYKO, Ph.D Director of Human Resources A few of the slides are based on a presentation by Jim Gullen Oakland Schools at the MIEM conference in Lansing on February 29th, 2012. The video protocol is based on work by Wendy Zdeb-Roper MASSP. Some of the Slides are also based on the Danielson iobservation training (Pam Rosa) from WCRESA on April 3rd and 4th.

2. Presentation Topics • Legislative Changes July 19, 2011 • Teacher Evaluation Changes Mandated by the State • Dearborn Evaluation • Training Administrators and other resources • HR website and service orientation “The Covey model” HR Blog and Website http://blog.dearbornschools.org/humanresources/

3. Rating scale, ineffective, minimally effective, effective and highly effective by September 19, 2011 Changes tenure to 5 years unless a probationary teacher receives highly effective on 3 annual evaluations, then it is 4 years of probation Tenure only granted after receiving effective or highly effective rating 3 years in a row. Tenure Act Amendments

4. Evaluations • Must have been in place by September 1st, 2011. All Administrators and Teachers must receive a year-end evaluation. • The Dearborn Model was in compliance with that provision.

5. Evaluation Continued • By 2013-14: IDP goals developed for all first year probationary teachers or any teacher rated minimally effective or ineffective on most recent evaluation • By 2013-14: Mid year progress report required for a first year teacher or for a teacher rated minimally effective or ineffective on his/her most recent year end evaluation

6. Observations • Performance evaluations must include classroom observations. MCL 380.1249 • The observer must review • 1. Lesson Plans • 2. State Curriculum Used • 3. Pupil Engagement

7. Observations -The observation does not have to be for a full period -There is a formal template titled “Conference Observation Form” -Multiple (minimum of two) observations are needed. -Administrators can still conduct informational/walkthrough observations and use the information gathered for the evaluation document

8. Observations -Multiple observations are needed for teachers unless they received a rating of effective or highly effective on the 2 most recent year-end evaluations.

9. Tenure 4625 Continued • Tenured Teachers rated minimally effective or ineffective have 180 days to improve via an IDP • Tenured teachers rated minimally effective or ineffective on three most recent year end evaluations must be dismissed. • Probationary Teachers are notified 15 days rather than 60 for non-renewal of a contract • Tenure hearing must be concluded 75 days after a claim vs. 90 days.

10. 4626 Tenure Act Amendments • Changes the dismissal standard for tenure teachers from reasonable and just cause……….. To not arbitrary and capricious. • Demote is now defined as 15 or more consecutive days of suspension (unpaid) vs. the previous standard of 3 days. • No more than 30 days of lost compensation in total during the year.

11. Administrators • Administrator includes building level school administrators and central office-level administrators who are regularly involved in instructional matters • Administrator Evaluations must include how administrators evaluate teachers or other administrators.

12. 4628 Collective Bargaining Effective after the current CBA expires in June 30, 2013 In Dearborn Prohibited areas for bargaining include: • Teacher placement, decisions on reduction in work force and/or layoff • The standard for any decisions on Teacher Discipline or Discharge • All of this depends on what happens with Ballot Proposal 2

13. 4628 Other Prohibited areas of Collective Bargaining • Number of Classroom Observations • Merit Pay • How parents are to be notified about ineffective teachers. • Teacher Evaluation Tool

14. Collaboration and Committee Work in Dearborn • Committee Work: I implemented a committee of teachers and administrators to create the modified tool for teacher evaluations • Presented before all faculty in November 2011 • Presented and approved by the board of education December 2011 • We also implemented a committee to modify administrator evaluations.

15. Teacher Evaluation Committee Rose Bruno Mark Palise Jill Chochol Shannon Peterson Andrew Denison Linda Salamey Fatme Faraj Robert Seeterlin Hassane Jaafar Gail Shenkman Julia Maconochie Chris Sipperley Glenn MaleykoMarc Zigterman

16. Legislation Requires • Rigorous, transparent, and fair performance evaluation systems • Evaluations based on multiple rating categories (ineffective, minimally effective, effective and highly effective ). • Evaluation based in part on student growth: as determined by multiple measures of student learning including national, state or local assessments or other objective criteria as a significant factor.

17. Evaluation ComponentsObservation Protocol • 1. The measurement of practice (what an educator does) based on a definition of practice that is clear, observable, commonly accepted, and supported by transparent measurement methods and instruments that are technically sound and validated against desired outcomes.

18. Evaluation Components Student Outcomes • 2. The measurement of student outcomes based on a definition of desired student outcomes that is clear commonly accepted, and supported by transparent measurement methods and instruments that are technically sound and validated against desired outcomes.

19. Defining Effective Teaching Two basic approaches: Teacher practices, that is, what teachers do, how well they do the work of teaching Results, that is, what teachers accomplish, typically how well their students learn Assessing Teacher Effectiveness, Charlotte Danielson

20. Observation Protocol has been the predominant focus, however that will shift soon Currently calls for a significant portion based on student growth and assessment. What does that mean?

21. Evaluation Focus Shift: What does this mean?

22. Evaluation • Evaluation must include student growth data by • 2013-2014 25%, • 2014-15 40%, • 2015-16 50%. • Use 3 Years of Data where available

23. Sec 1249 1c • Evaluates a teacher's or school administrator's job performance, using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a significant factor. For these purposes, student growth shall be measured by national, state, or local assessments and other objective criteria.

24. From MEAP manual • Test Results Will Be Included in Educator Evaluations The 2011-12 school year is the first time schools will be required to incorporate data on student growth into all educator evaluations. Schools and districts will be provided with student rosters for each teacher that list the achievement level and growth information for each student. For more information on the legislation and requirements for the conduct of educator evaluations, please visit our Educator Evaluation webpage at www.michigan.gov/oeaa <http://www.michigan.gov/oeaa> .

25. Winston Churchill • True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information.

26. Governor’s Council Will: • Make specific recommendations to the Governor and Legislature regarding this by April 30, 2012 • They Shall submit a growth and assessment tool (MCL) 380.1249(5)(a) • (Governor’s Council Renamed the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness MCEE)

27. They Shall submit a growth and assessment tool (MCL) 380.1249(5)(a) • That is value-added (MCL) 380.1249(5)(a) (I) • Has at least a pre and post test (MCL) 380.1249(5)(a) (IV) • It must be based on 3 years of data if the data is available. (MCL) 380.1249(2)(a) (II)

28. Dearborn Admin Training • Training in Dearborn as the Primary Area: Observation Protocol • Attempting to comply on the student growth piece which is in our model • What do the percentages really mean?

29. MCEE update • Interim Report Came out in May: Link on the HR Website and MCEE website http://www.mcede.org/ • They will pilot models in 12 districts. • Dearborn applied and was selected but we opted out after consulting with the State

30. Growth-Achievement Measurement Options • 1. State Tests (MEAP/MME/MiAccess) • 2. Other third party assessments (Tera Nova, Iowa, etc) • 3. Locally Created Assessments -common assessments ? - unique assessments (SRI, DRA, Writing prompts, other).

31. Growth- Achievement Measures continued. • 4. Measures other than Tests • Portfolios, presentations, projects, product assessments. • 5. Some combination of the above- The legislation calls for multiple measures. Each measure comes with strengths and weaknesses.

32. The Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Process and the Danielson Model: A Framework for Teaching http://www.flickr.com/search/?l=4&w=all&q=classroom&m=text

33. “After 30 years of doing such work, I have concluded that classroom teaching … is perhaps the most complex, most challenging, and most demanding, subtle, nuanced, and frightening activity that our species has ever invented. ..The only time a physician could possibly encounter a situation of comparable complexity would be in the emergency room of a hospital during or after a natural disaster” Lee Shulman, The Wisdom of Practice The Complexity of Teaching

34. Features of The Framework for Teaching • Comprehensive • Grounded in research • Public • Generic • Coherent in structure • Independent of any particular teaching methodology

35. Benefits of Any Framework for Teaching • Common language • Development of shared understandings • Self-assessment and reflection on practice • Structured professional conversation

36. Why Assess Teacher Effectiveness? Quality Assurance Professional Learning The Framework for Teaching Charlotte Danielson

37. Summary of The Framework for Teaching and the Dearborn Model • A research-based definition of good teaching • A roadmap to, and for navigating through, the complex territory of teaching • A framework for novice-level practitioners, through accomplished teaching

38. Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program Major Changes • 2005 initial Document based on East Grand Rapids Model and the Danielson Model • 2010 Changes-All teachers every year • 2011 Changes- Major Changes continue in alignment with June 19, 2011 legislation

39. Dearborn Teacher Evaluation Program Major Changes • Dearborn was further ahead based on the current model • Administrator Evaluation Changes 2008 Major: Recent 2012. • All Documents Found on the HR website in Dearborn

40. Plan I: Probationary Teachers • Prior to 10-1, IDP Goals, and expectations. • 1st year probationary teachers need to have an IDP ASAP • Prior to 12-15 1st formal observation • Observation Times have changed (no less than 40 minutes) • Prior to 3-15 2nd formal observation • Prior to 4-30 Year End Evaluation to be completed and include multiple observations • Please note that all timelines are recommended

41. Plan II: Tenured Teachers • Prior to 10-1, Distribute forms and review expectations. • Prior to 11-15 Initial Meeting to set goals • Prior to 4-30 Multiple Formal Observations (minimum of 2) • Prior to 5-31 Year End Evaluation to be completed and include multiple observations

42. Plan II Year End Evaluation • If a teacher is rated minimally effective or ineffective on the Year End Evaluation, then an IDP must be initiated. • If a teacher is rated minimally effective at the Year End Evaluation they will enter an awareness phase for the upcoming year. The Year End Evaluation evaluator will complete the awareness phase documents to begin at the start of the upcoming school year.

43. Plan II Year End Evaluation • If a teacher is rated ineffective on the Year End Evaluation, a Plan III awareness phase document must have occurred prior to April 30.

44. Plan III: IDP: Tenured Teachers with Concerns • 3 Phases (no major changes to the process. • Awareness • Assistance (3 reporting stages recommended • Disciplinary The recommended timeline is 30 calendar days between each phase and report

45. Overall Changes • Attendance will be reported on the evaluation template for informational purposes. • Student Growth Must be a significant Part of the Evaluation • Thus Standard IV. Assessment, and Element 5. Student Growth and Achievement must be referenced on the Year-End Evaluation

46. Training and Resources for Administrators/Teachers • General Administrator meetings. • Principal Forum Meetings • Other training sessions • Growth Data Training • Teachscape Training • Stages Software • HR technology infrastructure.

47. Training and Resources for Administrators/Teachers • Teachscape Training • http://www.teachscape.com/ • Stages Software • http://www.k12evaluationsolutions.com/solutions/stages • HR technology infrastructure. http://blog.dearbornschools.org/humanresources/hr-news/

48. HR Website http://dearbornschools.org/human-resources/hr-evaluation-tools

49. State Waiver Applied for on November 1st, 2011

50. What is your definition of Effective Instruction?