PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR TEACHERS

Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness Initiative using

The Danielson Model

Superintendent’s Remarks….

A New Way of Doing Business Legislative Mandate

Teacher evaluation – Charlotte Danielson

Principal Evaluation – Doug Reeves Peer Evaluator Value-Added Model (VAM)

Why Are We Doing This? Federal Grant- Race to the Top

SBHC applied for and received federal funds (+$2 million)

A requirement of the grant includes development of a performance appraisal system based upon a growth model for teachers and administrators and a system of compensation based upon student achievement data

Senate Bill 736 – Student Success Act (1012.33/1012.34 FS) - Requires all school districts in Florida to implement research-based models of performance evaluation and include a system of performance pay.

And, most importantly…..

Instruction will improve and, as a result, student learning will improve…..

“among the factors within the school that contribute to student learning, the quality of teaching is the single most important.”

(Danielson, 2008)

What the research says….. The “Ten Year Rule”

It takes approximately ten years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach expert status.

Number of years of experience is not necessarily a predictor of performance.

Teachers progress through various stages on the way to becoming expert Factors include:

Motivation Focused Feedback Focused Practice

Implementation Schedule 2011-12 – implement teacher and school

administrator performance appraisal system

2014 – Pay teachers and school administrators based upon performance appraisal system and student achievement data. (based upon 2013-14 data)

Purpose of New Teacher Evaluation “ETEI” – Enhancing Teacher Effectiveness

InitiativePurpose Statement: Working Together to Help Students Achieve by Helping Teachers Succeed

1. Ensuring quality of teaching and effectiveness of practices.

2. Promoting teacher growth and learning.

3. Improving student growth and achievement.

1. Rigorous2. Valid3. Reliable4. Defensible

The Danielson Model A Framework for Teaching

Four Domains

1. Planning and Preparation2. The Classroom Environment3. Instruction4. Professional Responsibilities

Domains 2 and 3 are “onstage” domains and are weighted more than 1 and 4 (Danielson research)

Planning and Preparation Knowing the content and understanding

what we teach. Knowing the students (demographic

information, academic background, special needs, etc)

Understanding instructional materials and resources

Understanding instructional design and assessment

Time

The Classroom Environment

Standards for Conduct are clear and routine

No loss of instructional time Respectful interactions among students

and teacher Physical environment supports learning

Instruction Students are engaged High quality activities and assignments Higher order questioning techniques Use of feedback and formative

assessment Teacher Flexibility - Use of “Plan B” when

necessary Differentiates instruction

Professional Responsibilities

High Ethical Standards Professionalism Reflection on Instruction Regular attendance Accurate Record Keeping Frequent communication with families Participation in school events Professional Development

Formal Classroom Observations Teacher provides a formative self-

assessment Pre-conference-respond to a variety of

written questions regarding the lesson to be observed and to determine the range of ability within the classroom

Observe the lesson-collect/script evidence only; not opinion, interpretation, or emotion

Post Conference-reflection; determine strengths and areas of development; make recommendations where appropriate

Peer Evaluators Support for First Year Teachers and New

to District; and Teachers in Need of Development

Frequent, formative feedback ; 3-4 “pop-ins” per semester

One Formal observation per semester (two per year) with Pre and Post Conferences

20% of Summative Evaluation Content Area Specialists, District

Resource Teachers, others (outside experts)

Category II Teachers• Professional Service Contract (PSC), Continuing Contract (CC) Teachers and Teachers with 4+ years of experience• One formal observation per year by school administrator (may conduct additional observations if needed)• 2-3 informal observations (walk-throughs, formative) per year

Calibration: Performance Appraisal Ratings All Administrators and Peer

Evaluators Certified by Cambridge Education

Must use rubric and evidence Insures Inter-rater Reliability Does not promote “rater-bias”

What about the evidence? Planning – Unit planning; the big picture; developing

prompts and activities that require students to use analysis, synthesis and evaluation

Student engagement – student work, relevancy, focus on deep meaning; use higher order questioning techniques

Communication with families – newsletters, phone logs, emails, etc.

Professional Growth – attendance log of professional development activities, workshop or conferences; reflection

Participation in a professional learning community (PLC) or action research project, log of school-wide or district committee service

Ratings Highly Effective- meets stringent criteria

in rubric; “elite” group of teachers; should have school-wide impact

Effective – classroom impact and rating that encompasses most teachers

Needs Improvement- developing skills and willing to improve practices

Ineffective – Little to no evidence of practices that impact student learning

(refer to generic ratings in Guidelines)

Value-added ModelsTeacher A

Student0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Prior PerformanceCurrent PerformancePredicted Performance

The difference between the predicted performance and the actual performance represents the value added by the teacher’s instruction.The predicted performance

represents the level of performance the student is expected to demonstrate after statistically accounting for factors through a value-added model.

New Standard for Teacher Evaluations

Category I Teacher - FCAT

Student Achievement - VAM Score 50%

Adminstrator 25%

Peer 20%

Teacher 5%

New Standard for Teacher Evaluations

Category II Teacher - FCAT

Student Achievement - VAM Score 50%Administrator 45%Teacher - Self 5%

Evaluating “Non-FCAT” Teachers

Category I Non-FCAT

Student Achievement District Assess-ment 40%Student Achievement School VAM 10%Administrator 25%Peer 20%Teacher 5%

Evaluating “Non-FCAT” Teachers

Category II Non-FCAT

Student Achievement District Assessment 40%Student Achievement School VAM 10%Administrator 45%Teacher 5%

Data State Growth Model – Value-Added covariance FCAT End of Course Exams SAT 10 for 2011-12 only; district selected

assessment after 2011-12 IPDP – collaborative/conversations with

principal (pre-post?) Student Achievement Goal Performance Appraisal (Instructional Practices) Goal Prescriptive Professional Development

After first year of implementation:

How are we doing?What have we learned?

Where do we go from here?

Questions ????