Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System

ASCD: ascd.org Qualities of Effective Teachers, 2nd Ed. (2007) Handbook for Qualities of Effective Teachers (2004)

Eye On Education: eyeoneducation.com Assessing teacher effectiveness: Eight Research-based Standards for Assessing (2010) Teacher Effectiveness = Student Achievement: What the Research Says (2010) Student Achievement Goal Setting: Using Data to Improve Teaching and Learning (2009)

Note: Selected books have been listed. For a complete list, please go to the publisher’s websites .

Each teacher performance standard has a set of research-based performance indicators (i.e., look-fors) attached to the standard. The set of performance indicators are designed to provide observable, measurable evidence of performance. The indicators are not prescriptive; rather, the indicators serve as examples of quality performance within the given standard. Further, the unit of evaluation (the level at which ratings are provided) is the seven standards, not the indicators. Thus, a teacher could expect to receive a diagnostic profile with seven ratings – one for each performance standard.

Performance Standard 1: Professional KnowledgeThe teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.

The teacher:.1.1 Effectively addresses appropriate curriculum standards.1.2 Integrates key content elements and facilitates students’ use of higher level thinking skills in instruction.1.3 Demonstrates an ability to link present content with past and future learning experiences, other subject areas, and real

world experiences and applications.1.4 Demonstrates an accurate knowledge of the subject matter.1.5 Demonstrates skills relevant to the subject area(s) taught.1.6 Bases instruction on goals that reflect high expectations and an understanding of the subject.1.7 Demonstrates an understanding of the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical development of the age group.1.8 Communicates clearly and checks for understanding.

Performance Indicators

Stronge Teacher Performance Standards

Performance Standard Alignment

InTASC NBPTS

1. Professional Knowledge X X

2. Instructional Planning X X

3. Instructional Delivery X X

4. Assessment of/for Learning X X

5. Learning Environment X X

6. Professionalism X X

7. Student ProgressAligned with 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS)

Performance Standard

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 1

Performance Indicators

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

Domain of Practice - Teachers

Publishers

Stronge Educational Specialist Performance Standards

1. Professional Knowledge

2. Program Planning and Management

3. Assessment

4. Program/Instructional Services

5. Learning Environment

6. Professionalism

7. Student Progress

A separate performance evaluation system can be provided for Educational Specialists (e.g. counselor, instructional coach, librarian, school nurse, school psychologist, school social worker, selected other positions).

The Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System recommends that student growth/achievement account for up to 50% of an individual’s summative evaluation. There are four key points to consider in this model: Student progress and achievement, as determined by multiple measures, accounts for a total of up to 50% of

the evaluation. Student progress can be measured by the selected growth measure in use in the state or school district – e.g.,

student growth percentiles, value-added growth models. For teachers in tested grades/subjects, 25% of the evaluation (one-half of the growth/achievement measure,

where applicable) should be comprised of student growth as determined by the New Jersey state growth measure and student growth percentiles. Another 25% of the evaluation (one-half of the growth/achievement measure) should be measured using multiple alternative measures of locally-determined student progress based on Student Learning Objectives/Student Achievement Goal Setting.

For teachers in non-tested grades/subjects, up to 50% of the evaluation (all of the growth/achievement measure) should be measured using multiple alternative measures of locally-determined student progress based on Student Learning Objectives/Student Achievement Goal Setting.

Teachers of tested grades/subjects Teachers of non-tested grades/subjects

Half from student growth measureAll from multiple alternative measures

Half from multiple alternative measures

The evaluation system is differentiated in three ways: The application of the performance indicators attached to each of the seven teacher performance standards

may vary depending on the nature of the teaching assignment (e.g., Kindergarten teacher versus chemistry teacher).

Teachers who are at different career stages (novice versus experienced) may have a differentiated evaluation design.

Teachers who are at different levels of proficiency (i.e., evaluated Proficient or Developing/Needs Improvement) will have a differentiated evaluation design and support system.

This category includes non-teaching, professional instructional and support personnel.St

rong

e an

d A

ssoc

iate

s Ed

ucat

iona

l Con

sulti

ng, L

LC

Student Achievement Component

Domain of Practice – Educational Specialists

Differentiation

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 2

Data Source Definition

Student Learning Objectives/Goal Setting for Student Progress

Teachers have a definite impact on student learning and performance through their various roles. Depending on grade level, content area, and students’ ability level, appropriate measures of academic performance are identified to provide information on learning gains. Performance measures include standardized test results as well as other pertinent data sources. Teachers set goals for improving Student Progress based on the results of performance measures. The goals and their attainment constitute an important data source for evaluation.

Observations

Classroom observations provide key information on several of the specific standards. Probationary teachers will be observed at least three times per year. Teachers employed under a continuing contract will be observed at least once per year. Additional observations for any staff member will be at the building administrator’s discretion. All observations will include a classroom observation of at least 20 minutes and a post-conference. A pre-conference may be conducted at the request of the teacher or the administrator.

Documentation Log The Documentation Log includes both specific required artifacts and teacher-selected artifacts that provide evidence of meeting selected performance standards.

Student Surveys Teachers are required to survey their students. It is

recommended that teachers enter a summary of the results in their Documentation Log. These surveys will provide additional data to the teacher that can influence teacher strategies in several of the standards.

A fair and equitable performance evaluation system for the role of a professional educator acknowledges the complexities of the job; thus, multiple data sources are necessary to provide for a comprehensive and authentic “performance portrait” of the teacher’s work. The data sources include: Measures of student achievement/student progress Observation (informal and formal) Document log Student surveys

Each of these data sources is described in detail in the comprehensive teacher performance evaluation handbook.

Self-reflection is one of the strongest attributes for fostering professional growth and improvement. The Stronge Teacher Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System embeds self-reflection systematically in multiple ways: Development and maintenance of a documentation log by the teacher, Reflection from review of student surveys, and Standard 6 – Professionalism, including the importance of the teacher’s own professional growth and

improvement.Each of these embedded attributes reinforces the importance of teacher self-reflection and self-renewal as a fundamental aspect of performance evaluation.

Sources of Evidence

Self-Reflection

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 3

There are four rating levels included in the evaluation system:

Category Description Definition

Exemplary The teacher performing at this level maintains performance, accomplishments, and behaviors that consistently and considerably surpass the established standard. This rating is reserved for performance that is truly exemplary and done in a manner that exemplifies the school’s mission and goals.

Exceptional Performance• Sustains high performance over period of

time• Behaviors have strong positive impact on

learners and school climate• Serves as role model to others

Proficient The teacher meets the standard in a manner that is consistent with the school’s mission and goals.

Effective Performance• Meets the requirements contained in job

description as expressed in evaluation criteria

• Behaviors have positive impact on learners and school climate

• Willing to learn and apply new skills

Developing/ Needs Improvement

The teacher often performs below the established standard or in a manner that is inconsistent with the school’s mission and goals.

Below Acceptable Performance• Requires support in meeting the standards• Results in less than quality work

performance• Leads to areas for teacher improvement

being jointly identified and planned between teacher and evaluator

Unacceptable The teacher consistently performs below the established standard or in a manner that is inconsistent with the school’s mission and goals.

Ineffective Performance• Does not meet requirements contained in

job description as expressed in evaluation criteria

• Results in minimal student learning• May result in employee not being

recommended for continued employment

Each of the seven performance standards has a performance appraisal rubric available for rating the standard applying the concept of preponderance of evidence.

ExemplaryProficient

Proficient is the expected level of performance.

Developing/Needs Improvement Unacceptable

In addition to meeting the standard, the teacher consistently demonstrates extensive knowledge of the subject matter and continually enriches the curriculum.

The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.

The teacher inconsistently demonstrates understanding of the curriculum, content, and student development or lacks fluidity in using the knowledge in practice.

The teacher bases instruction on material that is inaccurate or out-of-date and/or inadequately addresses the developmental needs of students.

Rating Levels

Performance Appraisal Rubrics

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 4

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

Requirements • Minimum of three days training for evaluators and two days for teachers• Follow-up of one to two days on-site training during academic year, as applicable

Method Training methods include direct training by experienced staff developers through a combination of direct instruction, application of evaluation tools, in-basket activities, video and pager-based simulations, and discussion groups

Format

Options include: • Direct training in central location (e.g., NJPSA training site)• Regional training with multiple school districts represented• On-site training for selected school districts• Train-the-trainers

Specific Training Specific training for teacher and teacher evaluators can be developed, as needed.

Certification Program

Certification of evaluators can be provided with successful completion of two phases:• Initial training in the content and process of the evaluation system• Inter-rater reliability training (follow-up to initial training)

Step 1 Assist with development of the school district teacher and principal evaluation system

• Provide materials and orientation to school district for development of teacher and principal evaluation system

• Provide master copy of completed Stronge teacher and principal evaluation handbook for use by school district

• Provide restricted copyright permission to use Stronge Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Evaluation Systems in school district

• Meet and confer with school district representative regarding development of teacher and principal evaluation systems

Note: Most steps will be conducted in partnership with NJPSA.Step 2Provide training to school district leadership team for principal evaluation

• Provide materials and orientation to school district leadership team• Deliver training to all members of school district leadership team, including

principals, assistant principals, district administrators – initial 3-day workshop • Provide forum for review of teacher and principal evaluation design during 3-day

workshop• Address key issues and questions from the school district team regarding

implementation during 3-day workshop• Provide materials and training for leadership team to deliver orientation to teachers

in the school district (conducted during 3-day workshops)Step 3Provide orientation and training to school district teachers (for teacher evaluation only)

• Provide orientation materials to school district leadership team• Provide training materials to school district leadership team, including orientation

PowerPoint and fact sheets• Deliver training via train-the-trainers or direct training on school district site –

minimum two days initial training• Provide forum for review of teacher evaluation design during training

Step 4Follow-up support to school district on teacher and principal evaluation system

• In conjunction with school district, determine schedule and needs for on-site visits to support the teacher and principal evaluation project

• Develop materials and training to be delivered during on-site visit• Conduct on-site visits• Provide additional technical support as needed on an ongoing basis (electronic or

communication support)Step 5(Optional Step)Evaluate the school district teacher evaluation pilot project

• Design survey and other data collection tools for evaluating the school district teacher evaluation project

• Administer survey and other data collection techniques• Analyze data from the data sources• Develop and submit final report on the school district evaluation pilot

The key steps in the design and implementation of the Stronge Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System are shown below.

Process

Training

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 5

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

The Stronge Evaluation System includes components for three major positions: Teachers, Principals, Educational Specialists (i.e., counselors, librarians, speech pathologists, school psychologists)

The overall evaluation design provides a uniform performance evaluation system in which terminology, data collection methods, evaluation rubrics, decision processes, and professional growth opportunities are standardized and compatible with one another. At the same time, the unique attributes of teachers are honored through appropriate differentiation in the design of the applicable set of performance standards, data sources, etc.

Selected organizations using the Stronge Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Performance Evaluation System include, among others:

States Evaluation System

Virginia Teachers and principals

Georgia Teachers and principals

Louisiana Teachers (with technical design and training support for principal evaluation)

New Jersey Teacher pilot project

Kentucky Teachers (technical support provided to KY DOE state steering committee)

School Districts

Numerous school districts across various states, including customized evaluation designs for both large and small school districts

Selected Other Organizations

Association of American Schools in South America with support from the U.S. Department of State – teachers (developed, piloted, and implemented), principals (to be developed in 2012)

Wisconsin CESA 6 – teachers, principals, educational specialists (consortium of 40+ school districts and regional service agencies – in development)

Additional Support

Professional development and technical assistance provided to more than 200 educational organizations in the U.S. and internationally

Research on teacher and/or leader effectiveness studies conducted/ongoing in the U.S., China, Australia, New Zealand

Numerous books and other publications on teacher and leader effectiveness, and connecting teacher/leader effectiveness with student achievement

OASYSTM by MyLearningPlan® (MyLearingPlan.com) A formal agreement is available for use in multiple states. A prototype for the Stronge Teacher Effectiveness

Performance Evaluation System is operational for New Jersey.Note: Principal evaluation will be added in the coming months.

Model Users

Compatibility with Teacher Evaluation Models

Compatibility with Any Web-Based Performance Management System

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 6

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

Empirical or statistical evidence of demonstrated professional achievement for principals (and teachers) over time as a result of the system: Initial studies of teacher and principal effectiveness are documented in two ASCD books: Qualities of Effective

Teachers (2002, 2007) and Qualities of Effective Principals (2008), and in selected Eye On Education books. Additional research is documented through other publications and technical reports.

More general studies of achievement of principals and teachers are reflected in subsequent research syntheses in such books as Effective Teachers = Student Achievement (Eye On Education, 2010) and various published refereed articles.

Numerous studies and selected dissertations analyzing teacher effectiveness in relation to the Stronge qualities of effective teachers (i.e., teacher performance standards).

What is the methodology used to collect evidence of the demonstrated professional development referenced above? Meta-review of extant research regarding empirical evidence for using value-added methods in education Teacher effectiveness research presented in selected refereed publications and presentations, including: A selection of publications and presentations include:

Selected Recent Research

Popp, P.A., Stronge, J.H., & Grant, L.W. (2011, January). East meets west: Effective teachers who work with at risk students in the U.S. and China. National Title I Conference, Tampa, FL.

Xu, X., & Stronge, J.H. (2010, October 9). A comparative review on teacher evaluation in China and the United States. National Evaluation Institute, Williamsburg, VA.

Xu, X., Stronge, J.H., Grant, L.W., Popp, P.A., & Sun, Y. (2010, October 8). Qualities of effective teachers in the United States and China: An international comparative study. National Evaluation Institute, Williamsburg, VA.

Little, C.A., Grant, L.W. , & Stronge, J.H.. (2010, May 3). Great teachers: Reflections of award-winning teachers on their professional practice. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.

Grant, L.W. , Xu, X., Stronge, J.H., Little, C.A., & Sun, Y. (2009, October). Teacher beliefs and practices in the United States and China: A comparative analysis.. Annual Conference of the University Council of Educational Administrators, Anaheim, CA..

Selected Recent Publications:

Popp, P.A., Grant, L.W., & Stronge, J.H. (accepted, 2012). Effective teachers for at-risk/highly mobile students: What are the dispositions and behaviors of award-winning teachers? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk.

Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., & Grant, L.W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., Tucker, P.D., & Hindman, J.L. (2008). What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 165-184.Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., Tucker, P.D., Hindman, J.L., McColsky, W., & Howard, B. (2008). National Board Certified Teaches and Non-National Board Certified Teachers: Is there a difference in teacher effectiveness and student achievement? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 185-210.

What type of research design has been established to support the findings? Various research designs have been used in the above-noted research. Among the designs are: meta-reviews

of the extant research, case studies, cross-case comparisons, surveys, and ex-post facto designs. Data analysis techniques include a range of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed design analyses.

Research Base

© Stronge, 2012, All rights reserved 7

Stro

nge

and

Ass

ocia

tes

Educ

atio

nal C

onsu

lting

, LLC

Of specific interest for New Jersey is the partnership between Stronge and the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association (NJPSA). NJPSA and Stronge have created a partnership covering initial training, technical support, certification, and ongoing professional development to support both the teacher and principal evaluation initiative in New Jersey.

Additional Information

Stronge and Associates Educational Consulting, LLC James.Stronge@gmail.com 757.880.3881