Supporting Quality Teaching: Overview of the Instructional Framework and Rubric Fall 2011

1. Supporting Quality Teaching: Overview of the Instructional Framework and Rubric Fall 2011

2. Why an Instructional Framework and Rubric? City Schools’ Instructional Framework and Rubric: • Create a common language about what constitutes excellent teaching and how it looks • Provide guidance in designing and implementing quality instruction for each student • Ensure an alignment of school resources, priorities and teacher supports • Elevate the work of the Common Core State Standards and the City Schools’ academic priorities of Rigor, Engagement and Intervention

3. Goals of the Instructional Framework and Rubric

4. Development Timeline *Additional TAG workgroup meetings held on March 30, April 27, and June 1

5. MSDE Teacher Evaluation Pilot • A low-stakes teacher evaluation pilot will take place in select schools in partnership with MSDE during SY 11-12 • Pilot involves the combination of classroom observations, student growth measures, and other non academic measures such as professional responsibility to evaluate teacher performance • Participating schools will also be required to conduct all aspects of PBES as their formal evaluation system

6. City Schools’ Instructional Framework Domains = Key Action focus for SY 2011-12 Key Actions

7. City Schools’ Instructional Rubric Key Actions Footnotes Descriptor 7

8. Connecting Instructional Bodies of Work TASKS QUESTIONS FEEDBACK HOW what

9. Implementation Expectations for SY 2011-12

10. Implementation Supports for SY 2011-12

11. Where Can I Learn More? Click on Teacher Effectiveness under the Teacher tab of City Schools Inside to view the Instructional Framework, Rubric and additional teacher supports http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cityschoolsinside

12. Performance Based Evaluation SystemReview of timelines, procedures, and connections to the Instructional framework

13. PBES Timelines and Documentation • The timelines, due dates, and documentation associated with the formal evaluation process, as outlined in the Performance Based Evaluation System (PBES) Handbook, remain unchanged including: • the staff review of the evaluation process • Individual Development Plan • 1st and 2nd observation cycles • mid-year progress reporting • end-of-year final evaluation rating (Proficient, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory) • the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) processes

14. PBES Timeline *From page 10 of the PBES handbook

15. PBES Annual Evaluation Performance Ratings* • Proficient: The overall performance exceeds many of the performance expectations identified in the four domains. The performance is either satisfactory or proficient in each of the domains. A combined score of 86 to 100 is proficient. • Satisfactory : The overall performance meets most of the performance expectations identified in the four domains. The performance may have domains in which areas for growth or improvement are identified. A combined score of 70-85 is satisfactory. Any domain identified as unsatisfactory requires the development of a Performance Improvement Plan • Unsatisfactory: The overall performance does not meet a sufficient number of the performance expectations identified in the four domains. The combined points for the four domains total 69 or below. Assistance and improvement are required in order to justify continued employment. A Performance Improvement Plan is required *From page 8 of the PBES handbook

16. City Schools’ Instructional Framework = Key Action focus for SY 2011-12

17. Connecting the Instructional Framework to PBES Domain One: Planning & Preparation Domain Two: Learning Environment Domain Three: Instruction Domain Four: Professional Responsibilities PBES DOMAINS T3: Use strategies and tasks that engage all students in rigorous work P1: Know your students T4: Use questioning to bring students to higher order thinking P4: Design daily lessons to meet learners’ unique needs FOCUS KEY ACTIONS SY 11/12 T5: Check for understanding and respond to misunderstanding R A 2: Modify instruction in response to data T6: Facilitate student-to-student interaction and academic talk

18. APPENDIX Sample reflection Protocols KEY QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION/FEEDBACK Connecting Bodies of Work: Making the Connection question Matrix

19. Sample Protocols for Reflection Questions • Turn and talk • Gallery/Graffiti walk • 3,2,1 share-out : 3 thoughts, 2 questions, 1 implication • Jigsaw For additional ideas on educational protocols visit: http://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocol/a_z.html

20. KEY QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION/FEEDBACK Domain 1: Planning and Preparation P1: Know your students P4: Design daily lessons to meet learners’ unique needs R A 2: Modify instruction in response to data

21. KEY QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION/FEEDBACK Domain 2: The Learning Environment

22. KEY QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION/FEEDBACK Domain 3: Instruction T3: Use strategies and tasks that engage all students in rigorous work T4: Use questioning to bring students to higher order thinking T5: Check for understanding and respond to misunderstanding T6: Facilitate student-to-student interaction and academic talk

23. KEY QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION/FEEDBACK Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities

24. Connecting Bodies of Work:Making the Connection

25. Connecting Bodies of Work:Making the Connection Plan 4 Plan 4 Teach 4 Teach 3 Teach 4 Teach 5 Plan 4 Teach 3 Plan 4 Teach 6 Teach 5 Teach 3 Teach 6 Plan 1 Plan 4 Plan 1 Teach 5 Teach 3 Teach 5 Teach 6 Reflect and Adjust 2 Reflect and Adjust 2