Teacher Evaluation Panel

1. Teacher Evaluation Panel Tuesday, February 12, 2013

2. Panelists • Glenn McClain Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 (CO) • Jan Rose Petro Colorado Department of Education • Patricia Hardy Pennsylvania Department of Education • Linda Rocks Bossier Parish School System (LA)

3. Colorado’s State Model Evaluation System Glenn McClain, Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 Jan Rose Petro, Colorado Department of Education

4. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

5. Together We Can VisionAll students in Colorado will become educated and productive citizens capable of succeeding in a globally competitive workforce. MissionThe mission of CDE is to shape, support, and safeguard a statewide education system that prepares students for success in a globally competitive world.

6. Students Successful students • Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and workforce ready. • Increase achievement for all students and close achievement gaps. • Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary education and the workforce. • Increase national and international competitiveness for all students. Great teachers and leaders • Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators. • Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness of new educators. • Eliminate the educator equity gap. Outstanding schools and districts • Increase school and district performance. • Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array of high quality school choices for students. Best education system in the nation • Lead the nation in policy, innovation, and positive outcomes for students. • Operate with excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness to become the best SEA in the nation. • Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE. Educators Schools/ Districts State GOALS

7. PowerPoint Template Students Educators Schools/ Districts

8. Expanding Student Learning

9. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

10. Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations. The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement. The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance. The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process. Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive. Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System

11. Continuous Improvement

12. 2. Annual Orientation 1. Training 9. Goal-Setting and Performance Planning 3. Self-Assessment 8. Final Ratings 4. Review of Annual Goals and Performance Plan Educator Evaluation Cycle 7. End-of-Year Review 5. Mid-Year Review 6. Evaluator Assessment

13. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

14. STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Principals Definition of Principal Effectiveness Quality Standards I. Strategy II. Instruction VI. External Development IV. Human Resources V. Management III. Culture VII. Student Growth 50% Professional Practice Standards50% Student Growth Measures Number and Percentage Other Measures of Teachers Aligned with CDE Guidelines Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? School Performance Other Measures Framework Aligned with CDE Guidelines Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective

15. STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers Definition of Teacher Effectiveness Quality Standards I. Know Content II. Establish Environment V. Demonstrate Leadership III. Facilitate Learning IV. Reflect on Practice VI. Student Growth 50% Professional Practice Standards50% Student Growth Measures Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with CDE Guidelines Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines Match of test to teaching assignments Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards IneffectivePartially EffectiveEffectiveHighly Effective Appeals Process

16. Principal Quality Standards

17. Teacher Quality Standards

18. Application of Quality Standards • Each quality standard includes “elements” — which provide a more detailed description of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard. • All districts must base their evaluations on the full set of quality standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements. • Some districts are using their own locally developed standards after completing a crosswalk of their standards to the state’s quality standards and elements. These districts must provide assurances that they are meeting all additional requirements of SB 10-191.

19. Principal Evaluations Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement. Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of 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 Quality Standard VII: VII. Leadership around student academic growth

20. Teacher Evaluations • 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. 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. 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

21. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

22. Rubric Alignment

23. Components of the Educator Rubrics Rating levels Quality Standard Element that aligns with standard Professional Practices

24. Courtney Not Evident describes practices of a principal who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them. The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what principals do on a day-to-day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels. The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the outcomes of the principal’s practices, including expectations for staff, students, parents and community members, as a result of practices exhibited under rating levels 2 and 3.

25. Principal and Teacher Performance Evaluation RatingsAfter CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix, the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.

26. Teacher Quality Standards Performance Rating Levels Elements of the Standard Professional Practices = Observable in Classroom Evidence Provided by Artifacts Examples of Artifacts Evaluator Comments Summary of Ratings for the Standard Teacher’s Response to Evaluation

27. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

28. Pilot Period Is used to develop, identify and/or test the following: • Principal and teacher rubrics • Measures of student academic growth • Method to collect teacher input for principal evaluations • Method to collect student and family perception data • Method to aggregate measures and assign final evaluation ratings • CDE monitoring methods

30. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

31. Timeline of Implementation

32. Agenda • Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators • Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot • Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191 • Successes and Challenges

33. SEA Successes and Challenges Successes Challenges Variance in capacity at local level Change management (time burden high) Inter-rater agreement across state system users Measuring student learning Attributing student learning • Focus on intent (rather than compliance) • Conversations about teaching and learning • Flexibility • Collaboration with associations • Coordination with BOCES to train regions • 27 Colorado pilot districts

34. LEA Successes and Challenges Successes Challenges Time Availability of resources in time to use with staff Comprehensiveness and length of new evaluation System and process unknowns • Train the Trainer model • Administrative team • Faculty • Previous improvement work is complementary

35. Contact Information • Katy Anthes anthes_k@cde.state.co.us • Toby King king_t@cde.state.co.us • Michael Gradoz gradoz_m@cde.state.co.us • Britt Wilkenfeld wilkenfeld_b@cde.state.co.us • Jean Williams williams_j@cde.state.co.us • Dawn Paré pare_d@cde.state.co.us • Courtney Cabrera cabrera_c@cde.state.co.us • Amy Skinner skinner_a@cde.state.co.us • Katie Lamslams_k@cde.state.co.us For more information, please visit: www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness

36. Measuring Educator Effectiveness February 12, 2013

37. Project Goal • To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth. The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.

38. How Did We Get Here? • June 30, 2012, Act 82, Section 1123 of the PublicSchool Code was passed. • Permitted use of student achievement data to be usedas part of the teacher evaluation system. • Established the components and weighting to be included in the new rating tool.

40. Building Level Data • PA has developed a School Performance Profile for each school in PA LEAs. • Based upon multiple data sources, all of which have been required by PDE in the past – no new reports. • Includes indicators of Academic Achievement, Closing the Achievement Gap, Academic Growth, and other academic indicators. • Each school receives a score based on these factors and their weighting.

41. Teacher Specific Data • PVAAS data • 3-year rolling average to reduce “noise”

43. Non-Teaching Professional Employees: Who Are They? • Dental Hygienist • Elementary/Secondary School Counselors • Home and School Visitors • Instructional Technology Specialist • School Nurse • School Psychologist

44. Non Teaching Professional Employee Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012 Effective 2014-2015 SY • Observation/Evidence • Danielson Framework Domains • Planning and Preparation • Educational Environment • Delivery of Service • Professional Development Student Performance of All Students in the School Building in which the Nonteaching Professional Employee is Employed District Designed Measures and Examinations Nationally Recognized Standardized Tests Industry Certification Examinations Student Projects Pursuant to Local Requirements Student Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements

45. Challenges • Collecting accurate data from LEAs • Building an accurate Student/Teacher/Course linkage system.

46. www.education.state.pa.usSelect Educator Effectiveness Quick Link

47. Educator Effectiveness – The Other HalfAn LEA Data Manager Perspective NCES Forum, February 2013 Linda Rocks, Bossier Parish Schools

48. Remember When… • Compliance • Filling in cells in grant templates • FOIA requests

49. Data Use OMG

50. Educator Evaluation www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/teaching