Understanding the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System

1. Understanding the Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness SystemMay 16, 2012State Superintendent’s Advisory Council on Rural Schools, Libraries, and Communities Julie Brilli, Director Teacher Education, Professional Development & Licensing educator.effectiveness@dpi.wi.gov

2. Presentation Overview • The vision of State Superintendent Tony Evers • The charge of the Educator Effectiveness Design Team • Five phases of work • Understanding the Framework • Current work on system development • State and Federal Policy • Next steps

3. State Superintendent’s Vision “Every Child a Graduate” • Research shows that the greatest impact on student learning is teacher effectiveness; second only to that is the effectiveness of a principal. • The primary purpose of this system is to support teachers and principals and provide the necessary resources for all educators to be successful. “Done right, I believe the systems will improve student achievement and provide a tremendous benefit to educators by identifying the strengths they bring to the profession, as well as areas that can be targeted for improvement.”

4. Educator Effectiveness The design team process

5. Charge of the Design Team • To develop: • definitions of key guiding principles of a high-quality educator effectiveness program, • model performance-based evaluation systems for teachers and principals, • a regulatory framework for implementation that includes how student achievement data will be used in context, and • recommendations for methods to support improvement and incentives for performance.

6. Design Team Design Team American Federation of Teachers (AFT) • (Bryan Kennedy) Association of Wisconsin School Administrators • (Jim Lynch) Office of the Governor • (Michael Brickman) Professional Standards Council (PSC) • (Lisa Benz) Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE) • (Julie Underwood) Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (WAICU) • (Kathy Lake) Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) • (John Ashley) Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) • (Miles Turner) Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction - (Mike Thompson) Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) • (Mary Bell)

7. Supporting the Process • Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER) • American Institutes for Research (AIR) • Great Lakes West (GLW) • National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ) Further Informing the Work: • Wisconsin participation in the State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (SCEE) as part of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) • 28 states collaborating on the policies and practices to improve student learning with a focus on the effectiveness of our nation's educators

8. Educator Effectiveness Design  implementation

9. Educator Effectiveness Timeline

10. Five Phases of Work in Three Stages Phase 1 – Design Phase (December 2010 to October 2011) • Design Team review of existing research and best practices • Major design features decided for teachers and principals • Publish Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness Phase 2 – Development Phase (November 2011 – June 2012) • Convene State Superintendent’s Coordinating Council on Educator Effectiveness • Workgroups develop rubrics and process manuals for all elements of the system Phase 3 – Developmental Pilot Phase (July 2012 – June 2013) • Train Pilot Districts, Support Pilot Districts, Evaluate Pilot • Revise and/or refine the model based upon data from pilot process • Evaluate model • Development of rubrics and process manuals for educators other than teachers and principals Phase 4 – Full Pilot Phase (July 2013 – June 2014) • Revise and/or refine model based upon data from pilot process • Expand pilot, training, and implementation • Evaluate model Phase 5 – Implementation (July 2014 – June 2015) • Refine model based upon data from two year pilot • Train and prepare districts for statewide implementation • Statewide implementation of Educator Effectiveness system

11. Educator Effectiveness The framework

12. Guiding Principles of the System An educator evaluation system must deliver information that: • Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with student learning and development • Documents evidence of effective educator practice • Documents evidence of student learning • Informs appropriate professional development • Informs educator preparation programs • Supports a full range of human resource decisions • Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts

13. Definition of Effective Educators Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways. Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

14. Seamless Transitions

15. Standards for Teacher Practice The Foundation for Teacher Practice InTASC Teaching Standards (2011) Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Core Teaching Standards 2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards, http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Interstate_Teacher_Assessment_Consortium_(InTASC).html Framework for Teacher Evaluation Based on Charlotte Danielson’s Domains & Components Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

16. Standards for Principal Practice Foundation for Principal Practice 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards Framework for Principal Evaluation Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-evaluation/Documents/Educational-Leadership-Policy-Standards-ISLLC-2008.pdf

17. Educator Practice Teacher Practice Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include: Observations of teacher practice Review of documents Surveys and/or other data sources Discussions with the teacher Principal Practice Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include: Observations of principal practice Review of documents Interviews with stakeholders Surveys and/or other data sources Discussions with the principal

18. System Weights Educator Practice Student Growth

19. Models of Practice Detail • (50% of evaluation)

20. Flexibility in the Framework • Districts will have the flexibility to create their own rubrics for the EDUCATOR PRACTICE portion of the evaluation system if they choose to; the rubrics must be aligned to the state system. • Application must be made to and approved by the State Superintendent in order to utilize an equivalent process to evaluate educator practice. • The Equivalency Review Process will be developed in 2012-13 school year. Until the principal and teacher rubrics are fully developed, it is difficult to spell out criteria needed for an Equivalency Review Process.

21. Equivalency Review Process Educator Practice - Teachers The rubrics for teacher practice must be based on the InTASC standards and Danielson’s four domains. Districts may combine components (but not domains) into fewer categories. Districts may add domains and components. Educator Practice - Principals The rubrics for principal practice must be based on the ISLLC standards and the subordinate functions.

22. Student Outcome Detail • (50% of evaluation) State Assessment – Value-Added Scores Models of Practice District Assessment Student Learning Objectives School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle) Graduation (High School) District Choice

23. Student Outcome Weights – PK-8 • State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures • SLOs and other measures

24. Student Outcome Weights – 9-12 • State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures • SLOs and other measures

25. Educator Effectiveness System Matrix Student Outcomes Models of Practice • Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.

26. Multiple Performance Categories Developing: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development Exemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership

27. Educator Effectiveness Understanding phase 2

28. State Superintendent’s Coordinating Council CESA Statewide Network • (Jesse Harness) CESA 6 • (Joan Wade) Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (MTEA) • (Sid Hatch) Southeastern Wisconsin Teacher Evaluation Consortium (SWTEC) • (Patricia Deklotz) Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services (WCASS) • (Gary Myrah) Wisconsin State Legislature • (The Honorable Steve Kestell) Wisconsin State Legislature • (The Honorable Sondy Pope-Roberts) Wisconsin State Senate • (The Honorable Timothy Cullen) Wisconsin State Senate • (The Honorable Luther Olsen) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) • (Bryan Kennedy) Association of Wisconsin School Administrators • (Jim Lynch) Office of the Governor • (Michael Brickman) Professional Standards Council (PSC) • (Lisa Benz) Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE) • (Julie Underwood) Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (WAICU) • (Kathy Lake) Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) • (Deb Gurke) Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) • (Jon Bales) Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) • (Dave Harswick)

29. Fundamental Developmental Tasks • Teacher Practice Rubric Development • Principal Practice Rubric Development • Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs) • Data Systems Development & Management Framework • Pre-Pilot Process • Evaluation Process and Manuals

30. Work Teams of Phase 2 • Teacher Practice Work Team • Principal Practice Work Team • Student/School Learning Outcomes Work Team • Data Systems & Management Work Team

31. Membership of Work Teams Representation from: Practicing educators, board members, professional organization members, and educator preparation program faculty nominated by members of the Coordinating Council Diverse regions of the state: central, northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast, etc. Diverse district sizes and locations: rural, suburban, urban Diverse school levels: elementary, middle, high, etc. Diverse content areas: science, English/language arts, math, social studies, special education, English as a second language, music, art, etc.

32. Teacher Practice Work Team • Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012 • Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012 • Development of Draft Teacher Practice Evaluation Manual to delineate the process for evaluating teacher practice by the end of July 2012 Actions & Products: • Rubric review, development, adaptation, and/or adoption • Draft teacher rubric developed by March 2012 • Final rubric completed by May 2012 • Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012

33. Principal Practice Work Team Actions & Products: • Rubric review & adaptation. • Draft principal rubric developed by March 2012 • Final rubric completed by May 2012 • Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012 • Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012 • Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012 • Development of Draft Teacher Practice Evaluation Manual to delineate the process for evaluating teacher practice by the end of July 2012

34. Student/School Learning Outcomes Work Team Actions & Products: Create “checklist” for selecting and creating SLOs by reviewing existing versions and modify as necessary: • Denver • Rhode Island • Charlotte-Mecklenburg • Austin Create a scoring rubric for evaluators (principals and/or content experts) to use in evaluating SLO evidence submitted by teachers; beginning with guidance developed previously by other districts and states, and adapting as necessary. Development of Draft SLO Process Manual to delineate the process for utilizing SLOs in the evaluation of teachers and principals by the end of July 2012 This manual describes the entire process for: • Creating SLOs • Gathering evidence • Rating evidence • Timelines for each step in the process

35. Educator Effectiveness Understanding phase 3

36. Practice and SLO Pilot Evaluation An evaluation design and pilot process will need to be determined for the 2012-2013 pilot testing of the teacher and principal practice measures and SLO measures. This evaluation plan will be initiated in May and June of 2012 and will be completed during the summer of 2012 in preparation for pilots to begin in Fall 2012.

37. Phase 3 Work Pilots, Evaluation of Pilots, Refinement of Model (July 2012 – June 2013) • Teacher Practice • Principal Practice • Student/School Learning Outcomes • Data Systems & Management Get Involved: Volunteer to serve as a pilot school and/or district • Watch for an upcoming email inviting schools and/or districts to apply for consideration to participate in the pilot

38. Educator Effectiveness State & federal policy

39. 2011 Wisconsin Act 166 State legislation requires that: • DPI develop a state model evaluation system for teachers and principals • DPI submit an estimate on the cost of creating and maintaining a state model system for the 2013-2015 biennial budget • Fifty percent of the total evaluation score assigned to a teacher or principal be based on measures of student performance, and fifty percent based upon observation/ evidence of practice • Every school district implement an evaluation process, consistent with this legislation, by 2014-2015 http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb461

40. ESEA Waivers • USED is offering states the opportunity to waive certain ESEA/NCLB provisions. In exchange, states must implement: • career-and-college ready standards & assessment system • differentiated accountability system • educator effectiveness system • Wisconsin’s waiver plans are based entirely on the Framework for Educator Effectiveness. • Design Team recommendations were in alignment with the waiver requirements around educator effectiveness • As such, the plans in the waiver mirror the Framework

41. Staying Informed and Involved Getting Involved: Districts will be invited to serve as pilot school(s) and/or a pilot district • Emails sent to districts on Monday, May 14th from dpiformsmanagment. Registration Due on Friday, May 25th at 3 PM Questions about the pilot/registration? Kris Joannes- Education Consultant kristin.joannes@dpi.wi.gov 608.267.2348

42. Getting Involved in the Developmental Pilot • Districts will be invited to serve as pilot school(s) and/or a pilot district • Emails sent to districts on Monday, May 14th from • dpiformsmanagment. • Registration Due on Friday, May 25th at 3 PM • Questions about the pilot/registration? • Kris Joannes- Education Consultant • kristin.joannes@dpi.wi.gov • 608.267.2348