north dakota principal and teacher evaluation. welcome! what is your present status? change! the why...
TRANSCRIPT
North Dakota Principal and Teacher Evaluation
Welcome!• What is your present status?• Change!• The Why and How of PTESS• Update on PTESS progress and timeline • Major Model Discussion• People using Models• Discussion and Q&A
2
Colored index cards as follows
Red Card 1Yellow Card 2Green Card 3Orange Card 4White Card 5
What is the Purpose of Evaluation?
1. Is the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation and supervision, to Rate (measure) the effectiveness, to provide feedback for Growth, or Both?
1. Rate (measure) only (RED) 2. Rate (measure) mainly, but some growth (Yellow)3. 50% each Rate and Growth (Green)4. Growth mainly, with some Rating. (Orange)5. Growth only (White)
4
Present System (Feedback)?2. To what degree is your present system effective in providing useful, precise, actionable feedback? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty good Green) 4. Excellent (Orange)
5
Present System (Rating)?
3. To what degree is your present system effective in Rating (measuring) your professional practice? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty good Green) 4. Excellent(Orange)
6
Present System (Satisfaction)?
4. How satisfied are you with your present system? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty Satisfied Green) 4. Very Satisfied (Orange)
7
Present System (Satisfied)?
5. Are you using or planning on using one of the following models for teacher evaluation? 1. Danielson (RED) 2. Marzano (Yellow) 3. Marshall Green) 4. McREL (Orange) 5. None of the ones listed (White)
8
The first wildebeest to cross the river is more likely to be eaten!
Vision Skills Incentives
Resources ActionPlan
Leading Complex Change
Skills Incentives
Resources ActionPlan
Vision Incentives
Resources ActionPlan
Vision Skills Resources ActionPlan
Vision Skills ActionPlan
Incentives
ResourcesVision Skills Incentives
Confusion
Change
Anxiety
GradualChange
Frustration
False Start
© Enterprise Management Ltd., 1987.
8 Steps for Leading Change Spiro1. Goal:
2. Readiness:Low Readiness – High StructureHigh Readiness - Low Structure
3. Stakeholders: Who are the key stakeholders? Who are the Opinion Leaders?
4. Early Wins:
5. Anticipate Resistance: Match the readiness level with support, identify potential opponents and bring them on board or minimize their ability to derail plans, and celebrate short term wins and think about the benefits of the new system.
6. Collaborate Planning: Do we have the right people involved in the selection and implementation process?
7. Scale & Sustainability: If we start with a small group, how will we scale up? If we invest in tools and process, can we sustain the effort?
8. Build in on-going Monitoring /course corrections: Who does What by When, and monitor to make changes as needed.
Why are we doing this?
Why are we doing this?
What does the data say?
2009 2010 2011 2012 201320
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21
21.2
21.4
21.6
ACT Composite: ND vs. National
StateNational
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisia
na
Michiga
n
Mississ
ippi
North Caro
lina
North Dak
ota
Tenness
eeUtah
Wyo
ming17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
Composite 2013: ND vs. States where all students take the ACT
Composite
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
2009 2010 2011 2012 201318.8
19
19.2
19.4
19.6
19.8
20
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
ACT English: ND vs. National
StateNational
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisia
na
Michiga
n
Mississ
ippi
North Caro
lina
North Dak
ota
Tenness
eeUtah
Wyo
ming15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
English 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT
English
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
2009 2010 2011 2012 201319.8
20
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
ACT Reading: ND vs. National
StateNational
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisia
na
Michiga
n
Mississ
ippi
North Caro
lina
North Dak
ota
Tenness
eeUtah
Wyo
ming17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
21.5
Reading 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT
Reading
2009 2010 2011 2012 201320.4
20.6
20.8
21
21.2
21.4
21.6
ACT Math: ND vs. National
StateNational
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisia
na
Michiga
n
Mississ
ippi
North Caro
lina
North Dak
ota
Tenness
eeUtah
Wyo
ming17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
Math 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT
Math
2009 2010 2011 2012 201320.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21
21.2
21.4
21.6
ACT Science: ND vs. National
StateNational
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html
Arkansas
Colorado
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisia
na
Michiga
n
Mississ
ippi
North Caro
lina
North Dak
ota
Tenness
eeUtah
Wyo
ming17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
Science 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT
Science
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
# Core 3890 3894 4117 4032 4011
# not Core 1761 1870 2574 2546 2521
250
750
1,250
1,750
2,250
2,750
3,250
3,750
4,250
Total Number of ND Students ACT Core and Non Core
# Core# not Core
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
% core 67 66 58 58 56
% not core 30 32 36 37 35
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
Percent ND Students Core vs Non Core
% core% not core
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Composite Core 22.6 22.7 22.3 22.3 22.3
Composite Not Core 19.3 19.2 18.4 18.4 18.1
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
ND Composite ACT Core vs Non Core
Composite CoreComposite Not Core
https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf
Grade 4 NAEP Data
Grade 8 NAEP Data
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
College Bound 6071 5747 5889 5726 5557 5574
Graduates 7445 7318 7348 7295 7183 6992
500
1500
2500
3500
4500
5500
6500
7500
ND College BoundSt
uden
t N
umbe
rs
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
79.4% 79.3% 77.0% 76.4% 75.1% 76.6%
Pair-ShareHow is your school feeling about the readiness for a new system?
31
How are we doing this?
North Dakota AdvancED
Principal Evaluation
AdvancEDAssurance
and Indicators
2.6, 3.4
AdvancED Indicators 1.1, 1.2, 2.4, 2.5
Teacher Evaluation
AdvancEDAssurance
and Indicators
2.6, 3.4
Professional Development/Learning
AdvancED Indicators3.5, 3.7, 3.11
North Dakota Common Core
AdvancED Indicators3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 4.4
Assessment and SLDS
AdvancED Indicators3.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
Accreditation and School
Imporovement
AdvancED Assuranceand
Indicators1.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5
How does this FIT Together in North Dakota?
Where are you with AdvancED?
Green Card if you are presently using AdvancED
Red Card if not
Yellow card if in the process of changing to AdvancED
34
Pair-ShareHow is your school doing in connecting all of the different state initiatives together?
35
What are the new Guidelines?
Timelines13-14 Spring State finalize guidelines with approved models as examples
14-15 Information on Guidelines and Examples provided by the State
14-15 Schools develop or select model for principal evaluation by Nov, 2014
14-15 Schools begin implementation process of a model for principal evaluation by Feb, 2015
14-15 School develop or select model for teacher evaluation by June, 2015
15-16 Schools begin the implementation process for teacher model starting Sept, 2015
16-17 State monitor schools to see plans implemented
37
What was the Waiver and how does not doing the Waiver Effect us?
Unique to North Dakota
• Student Performance NOT Significant Portion of Evaluation
• Levels of Performance DO NOT have to be translated into State Levels
• DO NOT have to arrive at an OVERALL SINGLE PERFORMANCE LEVEL for teacher or principal
• Teacher Performance Levels DO NOT have to be shared with the State
40
Before & After: A SnapshotBefore Component After
Binary – Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
Performance Level Differentiation
At least Four Different Levels
Evaluation required twice yearly first three years, and
yearly for after thatFrequency of Evaluations
No change: Evaluation required twice yearly first three years, and yearly for
after that
Not based on standards StandardsTeachers based on InTASC
Standards and Principals based on ISLLC
Standards
No existing requirement for Student Performance Data
Student Performance Indicator
Student Performance Data will be a portion of the teacher and principal
evaluation
41
Before & After: A SnapshotBefore Component After
State does not require one model Model
No change- the state will does not require one
model.
Performance Levels
45
Typical Evaluation Cycle?Self-
Assessment
Goal Setting
Evidence Collection & Observation
Formative Reflection
and Review
Evidence Collection & Observation
Summative Evaluation
Professional Development Planning
Student Data Analysis
Principal Supervision CycleORIENTATION on
PROCESS•Formative
•March - August
PRE-PLANNING by Principal
FormativeAugust
GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE
FormativeAug/Sept
EVIDENCE COLLECTION and MONITORING OF
PlanFormative
Sept-March
FORMATIVE CONFERENCING Oct-Feb
END OF YEAR SUMMATIVE CONFERENCESummative
March
Share with your group
What model are you using right now in teacher and principal evaluations?
47
Models
Danielson
49
http://tpep-wa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/instructional-frameworks/danielson-framework/
Models
Marzano
50
http://tpep-wa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/instructional-frameworks/marzano/
Models
Costs
52
Q and A?
Student Performance?
Student Performance Teacher
A. Student achievement data literacy B. Instructional improvement: applies student
achievement data to frame and measure standards-based curricular claims/student learning objectives.
C. Student Growth: students demonstrate measureable growth and achievement on specified standardized and non-standardized measures.
Student Performance Principal
A. Student achievement data literacy B. Data-driven leadership: evidences meaningful school-
wide professional learning that emphasizes all types and reporting levels of student achievement data.
C. Instructional improvement: guides teachers to apply student achievement data to frame and measure standards-based curricular claims/student learning objectives.
D. Student Growth: students in the school demonstrate measureable growth and achievement on specified standardized and non-standardized measures.
Share with your table?
Questions or comments on Student Performance
58
Q and A• Which evaluation if Superintendent / Principal?• How to do evaluation in K-8 with no
Superintendent?• How do you do with Guidance Counselors?• How do you do with Media Specialists?• How do you do with Special Needs Teacher
without classroom?
Regional PTESS Meetings
May 5, 2014 - MinotMay 6, 2014 - MandanMay 7, 2014 - Grand Forks May 27, 2014 - TiogaMay 28, 2014 - DickinsonMay 29, 2014 - FargoMay 30, 2014 – Jamestown
Additional InformationWebinars on Models and Technology
Website with Information
Cost of Different Models
Q & A Common Questions
• Whip Around: One significant “ah-ha moment” today
• Take a few minutes and share with us– Plus: What was a real “plus” of today’s session?
What went well and should be repeated?– Delta: Where is there room for improvement and
change?
62
Whip Around and Plus/Delta Debrief