EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90 TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS

1. EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS July 12, 2012

2. tonight Intro Activity PAST: Revisiting Past Work PRESENT: Understanding Systems FUTURE: Next Steps Wrap-Up

3. Intro activity • Where we are • In regards to PL90, on your post-its, please write: • One Positive Remark • One Concern • One Question

4. past 2011 Legislative Session

5. Sb 1  sea 1  pl 90

6. present Evaluation Systems RISE TAP McREL – See handout PAR – See handout A Process for Developing a System: IN-TASS

7. RISE • IDOE-developed model for PL 90 • Created by the Indiana Teacher Evaluation Cabinet, comprised of a group of educators across the state. • Teachers divided into 3 groups: • GROUP 1: At least ½ of classes taught receive Indiana Growth Model data • GROUP 2: Less than ½ of classes taught receive Indiana Growth Model data • GROUP 3: No classes receive Indiana Growth Model data (High school teachers)

8. RISE: two major components Professional Practice Student Learning

9. RISE: evaluators Who assesses teacher performance on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric? • Each teacher assigned to a Lead/Primary Evaluator • Secondary Evaluators recommended; not required • All evaluators must be trained in RISE • Min. 24 hours of training

10. RISE: professional practice cycle • Professional Development Goals • Teachers set beginning of year professional development goals (specific & measurable), using RISE rubric • Pre-Conference (OPTIONAL) • Before observation to discuss lesson and class. • Extended Observation (REQUIRED) • At least 2 per year (1 each semester) • At least 40 min, may span 2 class periods • Lead evaluator must conduct at least one • Mid-Year Conference (OPTIONAL) • Teachers reflect on progress to goal with evaluator • Summative Conference (REQUIRED) • Discuss year-long performance leading to summative rating • Short Observation (REQUIRED) • At least 10 min; 3 per year (spread across both semesters); unannounced • Lead evaluator must conduct at least one • No conferencing unless requested by teacher • Post Conference (REQUIRED) • Completed within 5 school days after each extended observation

11. RISE: teacher effectiveness rubric Teacher Effectiveness Rubric After a teacher has receive 5 evaluations for the year (2 extended, 3 short), summative rubric scores for each of the domains are weighted by the following system. Note the emphasis on instruction.

12. RISE: indiana growth model (igm) data

13. RISE: student learning objectives Student Learning Objectives PRE-APPROVED (must be used if available): TIER 1 (most confidence): State Assessment (ISTEP, ECA, LAS Links, etc.) TIER 2: Common Corporation Assessments (created or purchased) Must be approved by evaluator: TIER 3:Common School Assessments (created/purchased) TIER 4:Classroom Assessment Class Objective: E.g. Students will achieve 80% mastery of 11th grade ELA standards. Targeted Objective: E.g. These 5 students will achieve 40% growth of standards 1, 2, 3, 4. For the 1st year of implement-ation, teachers with IGM data are responsible for these objectives for only ONE class

14. RISE: school-wide learning

15. RISE: summative scoring 4-- HIGHLY EFFECTIVE (HE): Consistently exceeds expectations 3—EFFECTIVE (E): Consistently meets expectations 2—NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (NI): Room for growth in meeting expectations 1—INEFFECTIVE (I): Consistently fails to meet expectations Final Score Highly Effective: 3.5 – 4.0 points Effective: 2.5 – 3.49 points Ranges: Needs Improvement: 1.75 – 2.49 points Ineffective: 1.0 – 1.74 points

16. RISE resources • Indiana Department of Education: http://www.riseindiana.org • RISE Evaluation and Development System: Evaluator and Teacher Handbook, Version 1.0. • RISE Evaluation and Development System: Student Learning Objectives Handbook. • RISE Teacher Modules (Series of short videos) • http://www.doe.in.gov/improvement/educator-effectiveness/rise-resources-teachers • Email rise@doe.in.gov • Central Indiana Education Service Center (CIESC) • Debbie Fish, Professional Learning • dfish@ciesc.k12.in.edu • 317-387-7102

17. Tap Multiple Career Paths Ongoing Applied Professional Growth Elements of Success Instructionally Focused Accountability Performance-Based Compensation

18. Tap: multiple career paths

19. Tap: ongoing applied professional growth

20. TAP: Rubric domains Instructionally Focused Accountability

21. TAP: observation cycle Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which means that everyone receives feedback from multiple sources

22. TAP: teacher evaluations

23. TAP A teacher’s role determines the weight attributed to each domain in the TAP Rubric

24. TAP: performance-based compensation Performance-Based Compensation • Bonus awards distributed in addition to regular salaries. • Based on the amount of growth students make in one school year. • Indiana TAP schools are allocated $2500/year for each teacher’s compensation plan, but teachers can earn more/ less. • Data is only collected for students who have been in the TAP school for at least 126 school days

25. TAP: Determining bonus awards

26. Tap resources • Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL), University of Indianapolis: http://cell.uindy.edu/docs/TAP • TAP System Overview • Frequently Asked Questions • Indiana TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement • TAP Implementation Manual • CELL, University of Indianapolis • Jennifer Oliver, Indiana TAP Director • oliverj@uindy.edu • 317-791-5919

27. 2 more models (see handouts) McREL Teacher Evaluation System (ISTA recommended) http://www.mcrel.org/evalsystems/index.asp PAR: Peer Assistance and Review A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The Consulting Teacher’s Role: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/design/ct_role.html A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The PAR Panel: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/design/par_panel.html The Toledo Plan: http://www.tft250.org/the_toledo_plan.htm Professional Growth System: Teacher Level: http://www.nctq.org/docs/12-07.pdf

28. IN-TASS PROCESS • Indiana Teacher Appraisal and Support System • A process to guide districts and stakeholders through key decision points in the creation of a system that assesses and supports effective teaching. • Not an evaluation model

29. In-tass process 1 2

30. In-tass process 4 5 3

31. In-tass PROCESS RESOURCES • IN Teacher Appraisal System & Support (IN-TASS) http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=3503 • Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) Policy Brief (forthcoming!) • Center on Education and Lifelong Learning (CELL), IU Bloomington • Sandi Cole, Director of CELL • cmcole@indiana.edu • 812-855-6508

32. Questions

33. Resources online • Download soon! www.stand.org/indiana/indiana-resource-center • Your feedback is important to us!