edutalk: public law 90 teacher & school leader evaluation systems july 12, 2012 1

EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER

EVALUATION SYSTEMS

July 12, 2012

1

• Intro Activity• PAST: Revisiting Past Work• PRESENT: Understanding Systems• FUTURE: Next Steps• Wrap-Up

TONIGHT2

INTRO ACTIVITY3

Where we are In regards to PL90, on your post-its,

please write:One Positive RemarkOne ConcernOne Question

2011 Legislative Session

PAST4

SB 1 SEA 1 PL 905

Evaluation SystemsRISETAPMcREL – See handoutPAR – See handout

A Process for Developing a System: IN-TASS

PRESENT6

RISE7

IDOE-developed model for PL 90

Created by the Indiana Teacher Evaluation Cabinet, comprised of a group of educators across the state.

Teachers divided into 3 groups: GROUP 1: At least ½ of classes taught receive

Indiana Growth Model data GROUP 2: Less than ½ of classes taught receive

Indiana Growth Model data GROUP 3: No classes receive Indiana Growth

Model data (High school teachers)

RISE: TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS8

Component / Group

Score 1-4

Group 1 Teachers: at

least ½ classes taught can receive IGM

data

Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes

taught can receive IGM

data

Group 3 Teachers (all high school):

no classes can receive IGM

dataTeacher

Effectiveness Rubric (TER)

50% 60% 75%

Growth Model Data (IGM)

35% 20% N/A

Student Learning Objectives (SLO)

10% 15% 20%

School-wide Learning (SWL)

5% 5% 5%

Professional Practice

Student Learning

RISE: EVALUATORS9

Who assesses teacher performance on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric?

oEach teacher assigned to a Lead/Primary Evaluator

oSecondary Evaluators recommended; not required

oAll evaluators must be trained in RISE o Min. 24 hours of training

RISE: PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE CYCLE

10

Professional Professional Development Development

GoalsGoals•Teachers set Teachers set beginning of year beginning of year professional professional development goals development goals (specific & (specific & measurable), using measurable), using RISE rubricRISE rubric

Pre-Pre-Conference Conference (OPTIONAL)(OPTIONAL)•Before Before observation observation to discuss to discuss lesson and lesson and class.class.

Extended Extended Observation Observation (REQUIRED(REQUIRED))

•At least 2 per year (1 At least 2 per year (1 each semester)each semester)•At least 40 min, may At least 40 min, may span 2 class periodsspan 2 class periods•Lead evaluator must Lead evaluator must conduct at least oneconduct at least one

Mid-Year Mid-Year Conference Conference (OPTIONAL)(OPTIONAL)

•Teachers reflect on Teachers reflect on progress to goal with progress to goal with evaluatorevaluator

Summative Summative Conference Conference (REQUIRED)(REQUIRED)

•Discuss year-long Discuss year-long performance leading performance leading to summative ratingto summative rating

Short Observation Short Observation (REQUIRED(REQUIRED))

•At least 10 min; 3 At least 10 min; 3 per year (spread per year (spread across both across both semesters); semesters); unannouncedunannounced•Lead evaluator must Lead evaluator must conduct at least oneconduct at least one•No conferencing No conferencing unless requested by unless requested by teacher teacher

Post Conference Post Conference (REQUIRED)(REQUIRED)

•Completed within Completed within 5 school days 5 school days after each after each extended extended observationobservation

RISE: TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RUBRIC

11

Component / Group

Score 1-4



data



data



dataTeacher


50% 60% 75%


35% 20% N/A


10% 15% 20%


5% 5% 5%

After a teacher has receive 5 evaluations for the year (2 extended, 3 short), summative rubric scores for each of the domains are weighted by the following system. Note the emphasis on instruction.

Teacher Effectiveness Rubric

Teacher Effectiveness Rubric

RISE: INDIANA GROWTH MODEL (IGM) DATA

12

Component / Group

Score 1-4



data



data



dataTeacher


50% 60% 75%


35% 20% N/A


10% 15% 20%


5% 5% 5%

RISE: STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES

13

Component / Group

Score 1-4



data



data



dataTeacher


50% 60% 75%


35% 20% N/A


10% 15% 20%


5% 5% 5%

Student Learning ObjectivesStudent Learning Objectives

Class Objective: E.g. Students will achieve 80% mastery of 11th grade ELA standards.

Targeted Objective: E.g. These 5 students will achieve 40% growth of standards 1, 2, 3, 4.

PRE-APPROVED (must be used if available):TIER 1 (most confidence): State Assessment (ISTEP, ECA, LAS Links, etc.)TIER 2: Common Corporation Assessments (created or purchased)Must be approved by evaluator: TIER 3: Common School Assessments (created/purchased)TIER 4: Classroom Assessment

For the 1st year of implement-ation, teachers with IGM data are responsible for these objectives for only ONE class

RISE: SCHOOL-WIDE LEARNING14

Component / Group

Score 1-4



data



data



dataTeacher


50% 60% 75%


35% 20% N/A


10% 15% 20%


5% 5% 5%

RISE: SUMMATIVE SCORING15

Component / Group

Score 1-4



data



data



dataTeacher


50% 60% 75%


35% 20% N/A


10% 15% 20%


5% 5% 5%

Final Score Highly Effective: 3.5 – 4.0 points Effective: 2.5 – 3.49 pointsRanges: Needs Improvement: 1.75 – 2.49 points Ineffective: 1.0 – 1.74 points

4-- HIGHLY EFFECTIVE (HE): Consistently exceeds expectations

3—EFFECTIVE (E): Consistently meets expectations

2—NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (NI): Room for growth in meeting expectations

1—INEFFECTIVE (I): Consistently fails to meet expectations

RISE RESOURCES16

Indiana Department of Education: http://www.riseindiana.org RISE

Evaluation and Development System: Evaluator and Teacher Handbook, Version 1.0.

RISE Evaluation and Development System: Student Learning Objectives Handbook.

RISE Teacher Modules (Series of short videos) http://

www.doe.in.gov/improvement/educator-effectiveness/rise-resources-teachers

Email [email protected]

Central Indiana Education Service Center (CIESC) Debbie Fish, Professional Learning [email protected] 317-387-7102

TAP17

Multiple Multiple Career Career PathsPaths

InstructionaInstructionally Focused lly Focused AccountabiliAccountabili

tyty

PerformancPerformance-Based e-Based

CompensatiCompensationon

Ongoing Ongoing Applied Applied

Professional Professional GrowthGrowth

Elements Elements of Successof Success

TAP: MULTIPLE CAREER PATHS 18

TAP: ONGOING APPLIED PROFESSIONAL GROWTH

19

TAP: RUBRIC DOMAINS20

Instructionally Focused Instructionally Focused AccountabilityAccountability

TAP: OBSERVATION CYCLE21

Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which means that everyone receives feedback from multiple means that everyone receives feedback from multiple

sourcessources

TAP: TEACHER EVALUATIONS22

TAP23

Domain/Teacher

Score 1-5

Career Teacher Mentor Teacher

Master Teacher

Designing and Planning

Instruction

15% 15% 15%

Learning Environment

5% 5% 5%

Instruction 75% 60% 40%

Responsibilities

5% 20% 40%

Summative:

A teacher’s role determines the A teacher’s role determines the weight attributed to each domain weight attributed to each domain

in the TAP Rubricin the TAP Rubric

TAP: PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION

24

Performance-Based Performance-Based CompensationCompensation

• Bonus awards distributed in addition to regular salaries.

• Based on the amount of growth students make in one school year.

• Indiana TAP schools are allocated $2500/year for each teacher’s compensation plan, but teachers can earn more/ less.

• Data is only collected for students who have been in the TAP school for at least 126 school days

TAP: DETERMINING BONUS AWARDS

25

TAP RESOURCES26

Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL), University of Indianapolis: http://cell.uindy.edu/docs/TAP TAP System Overview Frequently Asked Questions Indiana TAP: The System for Teacher and Student A

dvancement TAP Implementation Manual

CELL, University of Indianapolis Jennifer Oliver, Indiana TAP Director [email protected] 317-791-5919

McREL Teacher Evaluation System (ISTA recommended)

http://www.mcrel.org/evalsystems/index.asp

PAR: Peer Assistance and ReviewA User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The Consulting Teacher’s Role: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~

ngt/par/design/ct_role.html A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The PAR Panel:

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/design/par_panel.html The Toledo Plan: http://www.tft250.org/the_toledo_plan.htmProfessional Growth System: Teacher Level:

http://www.nctq.org/docs/12-07.pdf

2 MORE MODELS (SEE HANDOUTS)

27

IN-TASS PROCESS28

Indiana Teacher Appraisal and Support System A process to guide districts and

stakeholders through key decision points in the creation of a system that assesses and supports effective teaching.

Not an evaluation model

IN-TASS PROCESS29

IN-TASS PROCESS30

IN-TASS PROCESS RESOURCES31

IN Teacher Appraisal System & Support (IN-TASS) http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=3503

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) Policy Brief (forthcoming!)

Center on Education and Lifelong Learning (CELL), IU Bloomington Sandi Cole, Director of CELL [email protected] 812-855-6508

QUESTIONS32

RESOURCES ONLINE33

Download soon! www.stand.org/indiana/indiana-resource-center

Your feedback is important to us!

edutalk: public law 90 teacher & school leader evaluation systems july 12, 2012 1

Documents

rise o

igm data group

rise rubricteachers

growth model data igm

class periodsat

group of educators

professional practice

onelead evaluator