Toward an Improvement-Focused System of Educator Evaluation

1. Toward an Improvement-Focused System of Educator Evaluation Jennifer Hammond OCTE Meeting November 7, 2013

2. Today’s Presentation Review of Charge of the Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness Review Specific Recommendations Answer Questions

3. Membership of MCEE • Deborah Loewenberg Ball(chair) Dean, University of Michigan School of Education • Jennifer Hammond Principal, Grand Blanc High School • Joseph Martineau (non-voting member) Executive Director, Bureau of Assessment and Accountability, Michigan Department of Education • Mark Reckase Professor, Michigan State University • Nicholas Sheltrown Director of Measurement, Research, and Accountability, National Heritage Academies • David Vensel Principal, Jefferson High School (Monroe, MI)

4. MCEE Charge The MCEE will submit to the State Board of Education, the Governor, and the state legislature a report that identifies and recommends all of the following: A student growth and assessment tool. A state evaluation tool for teachers. A state evaluation tool for school administrators. Changes to the requirements for a professional teaching certificate. A process forevaluating and approving local evaluation tools for teachers and administrators that are consistent with the state evaluation tool for teachers and administrators.

5. MCEE Vision The Michigan Council for Educator Effectiveness will develop a fair, transparent, and feasibleevaluation system for teachers and school administrators. The system will be based onrigorous standards of professional practice and of measurement. The goal of this system is to contribute toenhanced instruction, improve studentachievement, and support ongoing professional learning.

6. Implementation Recommendations • July 2013: MCEE submits final recommendations • Early fall 2013: Legislature acts on recommendations • 2013-14 school year: State and school districts focus on developing the necessary training as well as the required systems, processes, and vendor contracts • 2014-15 school year: New educator evaluation system launches across the state This staging is crucial in order to fulfill our charge to build an ethical, transparent, and fair system of evaluating educators, dedicated to educational improvement in the state.

7. Framework for evaluating teachers

8. Categorizing Educators Professional • Competent OR extraordinary • All performance can be improved • Must have specific feedback for development • Three years to advance roles/leadership • Three years to alternating evaluation years

9. Categorizing Educators Provisional • Some knowledge and skill • Specific substantial weaknesses • Beginning teachers/administrators • Experienced teachers/administrators with areas of improvement • Warning category • Three years provisional, counseled out of role

10. Categorizing Educators Ineffective • Specific critical identified weaknesses • Urgent notice • Significant improvement needed • Two years ineffective, terminated from employment

11. State Evaluation Tool for Teachers Observation Tools Required: • Danielson • 5 Dimensions • Marzano • Thoughtful Classroom Districts must use tool with fidelity

12. State Evaluation Tool for Teachers State to conduct RFP State to provide technical support and training LEAs to pay for costs above State supported tool

13. State Evaluation Tool for Teachers Observer training required Training provided by vendor Multiple observations required One observation unannounced Qualified peers can conduct observations

14. State Evaluation Tool for Teachers Administrator must conduct 1 observation Must include other observations in final determination Observers must be trained in coaching and providing feedback

15. Student Growth and Assessment Tool • Student Growth vs. Value-Added • Full Service Assessments • Model Assessments • Local Assessments • Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

16. Student Growth and Assessment Tool • State to develop assessments in core content AND high-volume, non-core areas • State provided guidelines for local assessments and third party assessments • State to provide training on student learning objectives

17. Student Growth and Assessment Tool • State to provide VAM for core areas • Half of student growth is to be VAM • Non-core teachers may use VAM, this is determined by LEA • Examples: • Art teacher, math results • Music teacher, reading results

18. Student Growth and Assessment Tool • School-level VAM will be provided and use to be determined by LEAs, not to exceed10% of student growth

19. Example: Proportion of data

20. Example: Combining scores

21. State Evaluation Tool for Administrators Select one tool: • MASA’s School Advance • Reeves Leadership Performance Rubric State to conduct RFP Support and train for one tool Evaluated based on practice and student growth

22. State Evaluation Tool for Administrators Administrators • Directly related to instruction/student learning • Determined by LEA Other Items • Proficiency on teacher evaluations • Progress on SIP • Attendance rates • Student, Parent and Teacher feedback • Other items determined by LEA

23. Changes to the Requirements for a Professional Teaching Certificate Provisional Certification to Professional Certification: • Require successive professional rating for 3 years • If not, then Provisional Certificate renewal

24. Local District Waivers Demonstrate local system quality and rigor Vendor tools cannot be adjusted or LEA must prove validity Plan for gathering validity and reliability within 3 years State to create an office for coordinating waiver process

25. Thank you! Questions? www.mcede.org jhammond@grandblancschools.org