RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design ACEES Meeting August 16, 2010

Meeting Agenda • RI Model Development Update • Process update • Overall design structure • Working group progress updates (General) • Teacher Evaluation Process • New content for discussion and feedback • Administrator Professional Practice • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Teacher Professional Practice • Draft framework for discussion and feedback

All aspects of the RI Model are currently in development and on track to meet the October deadline

Primary components to assess teacher performance

Evidence used to assess teachers

Final rating scale Individual ratings for each of the three components will be combined to produce a final rating based on the following 4-point scale: Student learning rating + Professional practice rating + Professional responsibilities rating Final evaluation rating

Process Group • Summary • Reviewed an initial sample draft of the evaluation process and discussed the key elements to be included in the teacher evaluation process. • Discussion centered around: • Use and frequency of evaluation conferences • How to ensure ongoing, meaningful feedback • Frequency and method of classroom observations • Individuals involved in the observation and evaluation process • Next steps • Continued refinement of the evaluation process details based on further iterations of the working document

Teacher Professional Practice Group • Summary • Continued discussion of specific competencies in the RI Professional Teaching Standards (RIPTS), INTASC Standards, and several other external rubrics (pre-examined and reviewed by the group) • Drafted a set of key competencies and domains for inclusion in the RI Model’s framework for teacher professional practices • Next steps • RIDE will turn around an organized draft of the teacher practice framework based on the group’s work at the meeting for further refinement

Student Learning Group • Summary • Reviewed and discussed the initial draft of the goal attainment process that will be used to measure student learning in all subjects and grade levels, providing feedback on various elements of the process and surfacing key implementation and capacity issues at the district level • Provided specific feedback on ensuring a goal attainment process that measures both content knowledge and core academic skills and processes • Created an inventory of current assessments used in Rhode Island, based on working group members’ knowledge of their (and other) districts • Next steps • Continued refinement of the goal attainment process details based on further iterations of the working document • RIDE will begin mapping out state vs. district responsibilities and share with group for feedback

Administrator Professional Practice Group • Summary • Continued discussion of use of RIELS as the basis for the Administrator Professional Practice rubric, reviewing and comparing other examples of leadership standards to make final determination • Agreement that RIELS will provide the framework for the rubric so that group can build from a single, aligned set of leadership standards • Agreement on general design principles for the rubric • Next steps • Group will begin to draft out the performance descriptors for the rubric

Professional Responsibilities Group • Summary • Continued discussion of the elements that should be included in a professional responsibility rubric for all educators, working off additional external examples • Reacted to and discussed initial draft of the professional responsibilities framework, providing feedback on the categories of major responsibilities and specific competencies • Reviewed and discussed different ways to structure the professional responsibilities rubric • Next steps • Develop proposal for preferred scoring structure for the rubric • Discuss newest iteration of the professional responsibilities framework and being drafting descriptors for performance levels within one domain

Support and Development Group • Summary • Examined and discussed strengths and limitations of various examples of existing professional development programs in Broward County (FL), New Haven (CT), and TAP (nationwide) • Discussed working group members’ districts’ professional development practices (Lincoln, Barrington, Woonsocket, Pawtucket, West Warwick) • Agreement on focusing work on teachers first before moving on to administrator support and development. Additional working group members may need to be added to successfully build an administrator support and development system. • Agreement on using the format of the New Haven support and development model to use as the basis for an initial draft. • Next steps • RIDE will provide a first draft of a teacher support and development program that focuses on teacher self-assessment and individualized development plans • Group will react directly to this draft and provide feedback to kick start the iterative process

District Developed Group Summary: • 4 districts submitted self audit materials for review • Meeting Friday to provide feedback to the 4 districts based on the draft rubric

Meeting Agenda • RI Model Development Update • Process update • Overall design structure • Working group progress updates (General) • Teacher Evaluation Process • New content for discussion and feedback • Teacher Professional Practice • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Administrator Professional Practice • Draft framework for discussion and feedback

Proposed RI Model Process – Key Elements and Timeline Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Self-assessment and individual development plan; Set goals based on student diagnostics Self-assessment, including next year’s development plan focus, and all gathered evidence to date Beginning of year goal-setting conference Self-assessment, review of all gathered evidence to date, and revisit development plan End of year summative evaluation conference Mid-year check-in conference Gathering of evidence: Announced and unannounced classroom observations, unit/lesson plan reviews, student work and data reviews, data team or other instructional team meetings Primary evaluator (must be in-school administrator) Ongoing situational feedback conversations and progress checks Targeted development activities (TBD by support and development group) Norming of administrator judgments and additional feedback: Classroom observations and pre-/post-conferences Complementary evaluator* Teacher leaders, mentors/coaches *District or state-assigned administrator/teacher

Process Discussion Questions • What are the non-negotiable elements (i.e., which elements must be included)? • Think about your current districts. What are 2-3 key items that may cause challenges when implementing this process? • How would this look in your own district? • Where should RIDE focus its resources to support the implementation of this process?

Administrator Professional Practice Guiding Principles • Builds upon the RIELS • Includes specific evidence of the quality of instructional leadership and school management at various competency levels • Is integrated with and supportive of districts’ initiatives and strategic plans • Seeks information, where available, from staff, students, parents and guardians, colleagues, and supervisors • Is based, wherever possible, on outcomes, evidence, and observable behaviors • Provides an opportunity for administrators to provide evidence of their professional practice • Incorporates different types of evidence and relies on multiple measures • Is fair and consistent

Administrator Professional Practice Framework Design Approach • Domain standards 1-4 of RIELS will provide the large evaluation areas • Within each domain, administrators will be rated on the competencies (e.g., 1A, 1B, 1C) • The indicators (e.g., 1Ai, 1Aii, etc.) will serve as examples, and will inform the performance descriptors for each competency (they also provide concrete guidance for development). Performance descriptors will describe what performance looks like at each of four levels. • For each competency and set of performance descriptors, we will provide specific, concrete sources of evidence to which districts can turn in assessing performance.

Teacher Professional Practice Framework Draft • Current draft of the teacher professional practice framework includes a set of domains (e.g., Knowledge of Students & Classroom Culture, Planning & Preparation, Classroom Instruction, etc) and a set of teacher competencies under each domain • The competencies measure teacher behaviors that can be assessed through observation or document/artifact review • The competencies in this draft are based off of a detailed review and discussion of RI Professional Teaching Standards, INTASC Draft Standards, and a variety of external examples, including Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching and DC Public Schools’ Teaching and Learning Framework.

Teacher Professional Practice Draft Framework – Alignment to RIPTS

Next Steps • Meeting: September 13, 4-7pm • Location: TBD • Continued review of draft working group products • Review of RI Model synthesis (to date) • Website- www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation • Public Forum- August 23rd and 25th

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design