RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design ACEES Meeting July 19, 2010

Meeting Agenda • Follow-up items from last meeting • Roles and responsibilities • Confidentiality and operating norms • Revised guiding design principles • Performance level descriptions • Input from ACEES • Connection to working group content areas • Updates • Development and implementation timeline and phase-in plan • Working group progress updates • Student learning component content update

Review: ACEES’ Role, Responsibilities, and Operating Norms • ACEES’ role throughout the system design process will be to: • Review and provide critical feedback to RIDE and the working groups on all key evaluation system deliverables • Provide direction to the working groups for overall system development through the design principles • Select ACEES working rules and operating norms for review: • After each working group presentation, ACEES will provide verbal feedback to the working group and discuss points of interest and of concern. Written feedback from ACEES members will also be accepted up to five days after the presentation and will be considered in the creation of the final recommendation. • ACEES will manage confidentiality by sharing and communicating committee work to constituents through summary points discussed at the end of each meeting. Meeting notes and key outcomes will be posted online for public view.

RIDE Educator Evaluation Model Design Principles (1/3) • The evaluation system will address four main purposes: • Provide feedback on performance to support continuous professional development; • Create incentives for highly effective educators; • Improve the performance of or remove ineffective educators; and • Organize personnel resources to support organizational efforts to meet district goals. • All educators will be evaluated at least annually and receive detailed feedback on their performance. • Educators will be summarily evaluated using four ratings. The final rating categories will be: Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, and Ineffective.

RIDE Educator Evaluation Model Design Principles (2/3) • The RI Model will be designed to be fair and credible. As such, multiple measures of educator performance in the dimensions are necessary to ensure consistency and accuracy of evaluations. The RI Model’s evaluation components will be: • Impact on student learning (student growth and academic achievement); • Teacher or administrator professional practice; and • Demonstration of professional responsibilities and content knowledge. • Overall rating will be determined primarily by evidence of impact on student growth and academic achievement, as determined by multiple measures of student learning. • Educators will be dismissed, in accordance with due process, who do not meet expectations for educator quality and are unwilling or unable to improve, as a result of feedback and outcomes identified in an improvement plan, in a timely manner.

RIDE Educator Evaluation Model Design Principles (3/3) • All evaluation instruments will include clear performance standards and, wherever possible, be centered on student growth, performance, and behavior. • Educator evaluation results in professional growth plans and professional development that will be differentiated based on performance level and, wherever possible, individual needs. • The evaluation system will include mechanisms to ensure intensive support that is targeted to individual educator needs and connected to the educator’s professional growth plan for teachers and administrators who fall below performance standards. • The evaluation process may vary based on previous evaluations and years of experience. Renewal, tenure, and dismissal decisions based on performing at a given level will also vary based on years of experience. • The evaluation system design must be practical in order to ensure implementation feasibility and fidelity.

Group brainstorm and input session Performance Level Descriptors will be grounded in the content of the working groups. While ACEES won’t finalize the PLDs until the content of the groups is developed, we want your input. As you consider each group and the draft PLDs, what might be some details reflected in a future draft?

Performance Descriptors Effective Teacher An Effective Teacher consistently meets professional quality standards in teaching practice, content knowledge, and professional responsibilities, as defined in the RIPTS. The teacher continually makes progress towards meeting expectations of the RIPTS. The teacher’s impact on student learning consistently results in most students achieving proficiency or making significant progress.

Tiered System Roll-Out Plan

Phase-in of Select Standards

District Developed Systems • First meeting July 15 • 4 LEAs attended • Reviewed guidelines for approval • Currently conducting self-audit of current systems • Declare intent by July 28 • Submit current systems by August 11 • Materials posted on RIDE website

ACEES Working Group Charges

Teacher Professional Practice Group • Summary of first meeting • Examined the RI Professional Teaching Standards (RIPTS) • Used the RIPTS as the basis of discussing the overarching teacher competencies that should be included in a teacher evaluation system • Meeting outcomes • Agreement that the RIPTS can be used as the core of the RI Model teacher professional practices framework • Group will revisit the idea of a RIPTS-based system after the opportunity to review examples of other teacher practice rubrics • Next steps • RIDE will draft a teacher practice framework based on Thursday’s discussion • Group will compare this framework to other examples and provide feedback on the competencies drafted into the framework and how a RIPTS-based framework should be organized.

Administrator Professional Practice Group (1/2) • Summary of first meeting • Discussed the elements that should be in a building administrator evaluation system • Reviewed the RI Educational Leadership Standards (RIELS) and discussed the process for creating a rubric that would measure those standards • Reviewed examples of other administrator competency rubrics and discussed specific strengths and limitations of each • Meeting outcomes • Agreement that the RIELS are a good starting point for creating an administrator practice rubric for the RI Model and that the rubric will set clear, specific expectations for what performance looks like for each element at each performance level • Agreement that there may be a role for teacher or other stakeholder feedback, as well as a role for portfolios or other artifacts, in the administrator evaluation process

Administrator Professional Practice Group (2/2) • Next steps • RIDE will draft an administrator practice framework based on Thursday’s discussion • Group will react directly to this framework and provide feedback to kick start the iterative process

Professional Responsibilities Group (1/2) • Summary of first meeting • Discussed the elements that should be included in a professional responsibility rubric for all educators • Reviewed and discussed the RI Code of Professional Responsibility and relevant standards in RIPTS and RIELS for inclusion in the RI Model’s professional responsibility rubric • Meeting outcomes • Agreement on the working definition of professional responsibility: “The set of professional values and non-skill-based behaviors that all Rhode Island educators are expected to exhibit. Although the educators in a school building may work in very different capacities and roles, all should comport themselves in accordance with a common set of professional traits.” • Agreement on the start of a list of items that should be included in the RI Model’s professional responsibilities rubric – these include exercising professional judgment, willingness to accept leadership roles, respect for all members of the school community, and collaboration

Professional Responsibilities Group (2/2) • Next steps • RIDE will draft an educator professional responsibilities framework based on Thursday’s discussion • Group will react directly to this framework and provide feedback to kick start the iterative process, using other examples of professional responsibility rubrics as a comparison point

Support and Development Group (1/2) • Summary of first meeting • Reviewed the proposed guiding principles • Discussed key overarching elements of a state-wide teacher development program and outlined an initial process for further discussion and refinement • Meeting outcomes • Agreement on teacher responsibility for development plans and the importance of both teacher and administrator involvement in determining a development plan, including input from an individual other than the teacher who has relevant content knowledge • Agreement on the direct link that needs to exist between development and evaluation – evaluation outcomes should inform the development plan, and self-assessment and reflection should be key parts of the development process • Discussion surfaced a key issue for this group: the role of management in teacher development and the degree of ownership the teacher should have over his/her development plan

Support and Development Group (2/2) • Next steps • RIDE will provide a first draft of the guidelines that will cover process, categories of support provided, and a development timeline for the school year • Group will react directly to this draft and provide feedback to kick start the iterative process

Evaluation Process Group (1/2) • Summary of first meeting • Reviewed the guiding principles and the proposed overarching elements of an evaluation process • Discussed the group’s reactions to and concerns about the proposed overarching elements, including the balance between RIDE’s role in prescribing certain procedures and providing general guidelines and options for local flexibility

Evaluation Process Group (2/2) • Meeting outcomes • Agreement on the principles guiding process design; in particular, cascading accountability for student performance, differentiating between observation and evaluation, self-reflection as a driving component of the process, and regularly occurring discussions about teacher performance • Agreement that substantive, ongoing conferences are an important part of building a strong professional relationship and should be central to the evaluation process • Discussion surfaced key communication, training, and implementation issues to be considered in further working group meetings and in RIDE’s planning meetings • Next steps • Confirm agreement of key outcomes • Design loose structure representing whole process for feedback

Framework for Applying Multiple Measures of Student Learning Student learning rating The student learning rating is determined by a combination of different sources of evidence of student learning. These sources fall into three categories: + Professional practice rating Category 1: Student growth on state standardized tests (e.g., NECAP, PARCC) Category 2: Student growth on standardized district-wide tests (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-10, ACCESS, etc.) Category 3: Other local school-, administrator-, or teacher-selected measures of student performance + Professional responsibilities rating Final evaluation rating

Student Learning Group Guiding Principles (1/2) • Different groups of teachers, based on their grade level, subject area, and what kinds of assessments exist for them, will have different combinations of student learning data available. Therefore, not all teachers’ impact on student learning will be measured by the same mix of assessments, and the mix of assessments used for any given teacher group may vary from year to year. • Teacher A (5th grade) • Teacher B (11th grade English) • Teacher C (middle school art) • This teacher may use several category 3 assessments Category 3 (e.g., principal review of student work over a six month span) Teacher A’s student learning rating Category 1 (growth on NECAP) Category 2 (e.g., growth on NWEA) Category 3 (e.g., joint review of critical essay portfolio) Teacher B’s student learning rating + = + Category 2 (e.g., AP English exam) + =

Student Learning Group Guiding Principles (2/2) • All teachers’ overall SL rating will be based on multiple measures of student learning. Most, if not all, measures will be based on student growth, not absolute performance. • Student growth on standardized tests (state-wide and district-selected) will be used only when appropriate tests and data exist for any given teacher. Allteachers will use local school-based measures every year. • The measures that fall into category 3 are varied and more conducive to interpretation and administrator discretion. In this category, teachers and evaluators will be responsible for selecting the assessments that the teacher will use to show evidence of student learning for each of his/her classes (or groups of students). Evaluators will then assess the level of student learning that has occurred, based on review of student progress on the set of pre-determined assessments. • Because the appropriate assessments in category 3 are so varied and dependent on individual teacher and evaluator discretion, it will be important for RIDE to establish quality guidelines that schools can use to ensure that any selected assessment meets RIDE’s standards for quality and rigor.

Next Steps • Meeting: August 16, 1-4 • Location: NK School Committee Room • Review of draft working group products • Website- www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation • Public Forum- late August

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design