Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012

1. Connecticut PEAC meeting 1.9.2012

3. PEAC’s decisions thus far • Principles for Teacher Evaluation Guidelines • State best practices (discussed at Dec 20 PEAC meeting) • Agreement on Connecticut’s design approach – minimum requirements and state model

4. PEAC Principles for Evaluation Guidelines • Primary purpose of evaluation is to strengthen individual and collective practices in order to improve student learning... • Evaluation systems should…include multiple indicators of student academic growth and development while taking into account measurable student characteristics… • Evaluation systems should be standards-based using the Common Core of Teaching, state adopted leadership standards, etc. • When weaknesses are identified, the educator should seek resources and support, including peer assistance and resource opportunities and support provided by the district… • Local district evaluation plans should be developed collaboratively by educators and administrators…

5. Principles for Evaluation Guidelines (cont.) • Professional learning plans should reflect the needs of individuals and groups of educators identified through the evaluation process… • Evaluation systems should include opportunities for formative, summative and self-evaluation. • Districts should provide regular and ongoing professional learning opportunities and allocate time for educators and evaluators to collaborate to promote effective implementation of the evaluation plan. • Evaluation plans should include a process for resolving disputes in cases in which the educator and evaluator disagree on goal-setting, formative or summative evaluation, and/or the improvement plan. • Districts should review and revise their evaluation plans at least every five years, using current research and best practice.

6. State best practices include: • 4 rating levels • Annual reviews for all teachers and administrators • Multiple indicators of student learning that are a significant part of teacher and administrator evaluations • Evaluations that provide teachers and administrators with useful feedback & results linked to professional development • Strong training for evaluators • A statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets regularly to provide implementation guidance • Pilot process or staggered implementation

7. Minimum requirements and state model • Agreement on a system design approach – establish minimum requirements for districts and design a state evaluation model • State will determine minimum requirements for district teacher and administrator evaluation systems • Districts will be permitted to develop evaluation systems, subject to minimum requirements, and with capacity support and review from the State Department of Education • State will develop model teacher and administrator systems that districts may adopt as desired • Districts that cannot come to agreement or do not establish systems by a state-determined deadline will use the state model

8. A possible roadmap moving forward • Agreement on general design approach - Completed 12/20 • Determine minimum criteria and process requirements - January • What component types will be permitted? • What minimum weights for each component type will be required? • Will the minimum requirements specify processes (e.g., # of observations, who conducts observations, who trains evaluators)? • Determine implementation requirements - February • When must districts submit systems to state for feedback & approval? • When will the state model go in effect for districts without local systems? • What training requirements for evaluators should be specified? • Should the state consider a pilot program? • Form an “implementation working group” to address these questions? -- continued on next slide --

9. A possible roadmap moving forward (cont.) • Assist in development of model for teachers, administrators, & pupil services staff – February/March • Components • Weighting • Working groups • Guidance on process for how the state models will work – Feb/Mar • What processes will be prescribed? (who conducts observations, are conferences required, differences based on experience and effectiveness ratings, etc.) • What tools are needed? (goal setting materials, scoring rubrics, etc.) • Determine review process for draft state models – April/May • State reviews draft teacher, principal, & pupil service models • Collect educator feedback on state models • How could feedback from pilot districts be used to improve systems? • NOTE: State Board iterative feedback and adoption process

10. Draft Timeline April/May - Educator feedback on state models February - Working groups convene and begin developing state models & implementation plans March/April - review of draft state models July - Due date for state model development and adoption January – State determines minimum requirements for district systems

11. Goal for today: recommended components • Component types will become the backbone of minimum guidelines for districts and the eventual state models • Today, PEAC will discuss evaluation components and consider what teacher systems should include • We will also preview principal components today, but are adding additional expertise for the next meeting

12. General component types for teachers • Several types of components are common in teacher evaluation systems: • Observations of teacher practice • Indicators of professional responsibility • Peer feedback • Student feedback • Parent feedback • Multiple indicators of student learning Source: Education First analysis

13. Observations of teacher practice • Observations of classroom instruction are a near-universal component of evaluation systems • Observations use rubrics to gauge alignment of instruction to professional teaching standards • Many states and districts adopt rubrics based on one or more national frameworks, such as Charlotte Danielson or Robert Marzano • Other states, like Colorado, develop their own standards • Other details pertaining to observations, including: • Use of a particular rubric aligned with the CT Teaching Standards • Number of observations each year, and variations for subgroups • Timing and scheduling of observations • Parties responsible for observations (principals and master teachers) • Requirements for pre- and/or post-observation conferences • Requirements for support and PD that result from evaluations Source: Education First analysis; State of the States. NCTQ. (2010).; Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011)

14. Principles for teacher practice observations • State to ensure that different teacher observation rubrics that are used are aligned to Connecticut’s teacher standards • (1) a minimum number of observations, (2) who conducts observations, and (3) details on conferences • A state teacher model working group to customize a model observation rubric • Evaluator training to focus on that one observation rubric

15. Indicators of professional responsibility • These indicators capture a teacher’s contribution to the school culture • Example – Rhode Island educators are rated on four core Professional Responsibilities categories: • Collaborate and Contribute to the School Community • Believe in and Advocate for Students • Create a Culture of Respect • Exercise Professional Judgment and Development • Teachers in Washington, DC Public Schools are scored on a rubric of five aspects of community involvement and are given a core professionalism rating that considers items such as unexcused absences Source: Education First analysis; The Rhode Island Model: Teacher Guidebook 2011-2012. Rhode Island Department of Education. (2011); “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook 2010-2011.” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools

16. Peer feedback • Teachers in some schools complete surveys on their peers’ core values and contributions to the mission of the school • Districts will be permitted to design and include peer review systems in Colorado • “Peer Validation” is used in New Haven to confirm scores for teachers on the low and high ends of the rating scale Source: Education First analysis; “Group 1 IMPACT Guidebook 2010-2011.” (2010). District of Columbia Public Schools; New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010)

17. Parent and student feedback • Districts may elect to use surveys to measure parent and student perception in Colorado • Gates Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study has shown that certain student survey responses are highly predictive of strong student outcomes • As part of the goal setting process in Ohio, teachers may be asked to analyze results from student and parent surveys Source: Education First analysis; Colorado State Board of Education Rules adopted November 2011; Ohio Teacher Evaluation System Model Packet draft 7/13/11

18. Multiple indicators of student learning • A variety of items are used as indicators of student learning • Best practice dictates incorporating multiple indicators of growth into the student learning component • Multiple indicators ensure effective evaluations for all teachers, not just those in select subjects and grades • Effective systems use multiple indicators that are fair, valid, reliable and useful • No single indicator is completely able to account for student learning or a teacher’s unique contribution • Together, multiple indicators capture a range of teaching behaviors Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

19. Characteristics of strong student learning indicators • Fairindicators apply to educators uniformly, are free of bias, and are transparent to those being evaluated • Validindicators are instruments that are appropriate to measure what they purport to measure • Reliableindicators reveal an accurate representation of what is being assessed, and these results are consistent and repeatable • Usefulindicators result in relevant feedback to educators, and should inform professional development plans as well as human resource decisions Source: Education First analysis; Multiple Measures in Teacher Evaluation: An introduction to measures of student learning. American Federation of Teachers. (2011); Educator Quality for the 21st Century: A Collaborative Effort of the American Association of School Administrators and the American Federation of Teachers. AFT & AASA. (2011); Teacher Assessment and Evaluation: The National Education Association’s Framework for Transforming Education Systems to Support Effective Teaching and Improve Student Learning. NEA. (2010).

20. Selecting multiple indicators of student learning • In selecting multiple indicators, states commonly require a mix of indicators suitable for comparing student learning across the state and indicators developed locally (TN, NY) • Many states include safeguards for teachers around student characteristics, attendance, and mobility (like in the CT legislation) to ensure consistent student engagement over a meaningful period of time • Illinois divides indicator types (see Appendix) into three categories and requires use of at least two indicators Source: Education First analysis; Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

21. Examples of student learning indicators Source: Measuring student growth: At a glance. The Center for Public Education. (2007); Student Performance Assessment in Diversified Teacher Compensation Systems. Education Commission of the States. (2007); 2009 State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2009)

22. Components for principals • Similar categories, similar emphases but schoolwide • Additional support for the process of establishing guidelines for principal evaluations is on the way • New Leaders for New Schools suggests evaluations of principals should focus on their success increasing student learning and teacher effectiveness, with assessment of demonstration of key leadership actions as well • Districts in Colorado will be required to establish evaluations that balance student academic growth with professional practice • Practice will by evaluated by gauging teacher input, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher improvement Source: Evaluating Principals: Balancing accountability with professional growth. New Leaders for New Schools; Power Point overview of Colorado’s State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

23. Discussion of teacher evaluation components • Are there any component types not discussed today that you would like to add for our consideration? • Which component types would you like to recommend districts include in their systems? • We’ll discuss requiring certain components and minimum weights at our next meeting

24. Next steps • Discuss the value placed on different components (weights) • Consider additional minimum guidelines on process and implementation, including: • Observation rubrics • Permitted and/or required student learning indicator sources • Evaluator training • Implementation timelines and pilot question • Launch implementation and state model working groups • Reschedule the next meeting (no longer Jan 24)

25. Contact Information • John Luczak • john@educationfirstconsulting.com • 847-769-3290 • Adam Petkun • adam@educationfirstconsulting.com • 541-513-4195

26. Appendix: Evaluation component examples

27. Minimum requirements for teacher evaluations in Colorado districts Evaluated using: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include additional measures. • Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data. Quality Standards I-V: I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on practice V. Demonstrate leadership Quality Standard VI: VI. Responsibility for student academic growth Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

28. Minimum requirements for principal evaluations in Colorado districts 50% Student Academic Growth 50% Professional Practice Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth. Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement. Quality Standard VII: VII. Leadership around student academic growth Quality Standards I-VI: I. Strategic leadership II. Instructional leadership III. School culture/equity leadership IV. HR leadership V. Managerial leadership VI. External development leadership Graph Source: Power Point Overview of [Colorado’s ] State Board Approved Rules (Nov. 2011)

29. Rhode Island educator evaluation model – Key components • When fully implemented in the 2012-2013 school year, Rhode Island’s system will consist of the following components: SOURCE: The Rhode Island Model: Guide to Evaluating Building Administrators and Teachers, 2011-2012

30. Example of assessment categorization in Illinois Image Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

31. Illinois draft evaluation default model – Key components • Formal and informal observations • Pre-observation meeting to review lesson plan • Post-observation meeting with self-reflection and evaluator feedback, with relevant evidence • “Demonstrable change in a student’s learning between two or more points in time” • Requires use of at least two indicators • Requires mix of indicator types (see last slide) • At least one Type III assessment • And at least one Type I or Type II (not ISAT or PSAE) • Or two Type III assessments Source: Transforming Educator Evaluations in Illinois: An Overview Presentation. ISBE. (2011)

32. New Haven Public Schools – Key components • At the beginning of each year, teachers meet with their Instructional Manager (IM) to set goals in each category of the evaluation • Teachers are rated on a 1-5 scale for each component at the end of each year SOURCE: New Haven Public Schools

33. Multiple measures in New Haven (cont.) - Examples from selected teacher group types Source: New Haven Teacher Evaluation and Development - Student Learning Goals. NHPS. (2010)