Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan

1. Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation and Support Plan Orientation to Teacher EvaluationApril 2013

2. Connecticut Educator Evaluation Timeline • In June 2012, the State Board of Education formally adopted the guidelines for Connecticut’s Educator Evaluation and Support model (SEED). • During 2012-13 several CT districts are piloting SEED. • Districts required to submit plan to CSDE April 15. • Districts are required to implement their new Educator Evaluator Plan July 2013. • Committee is drafting Wethersfield plan and adjusting as information is becoming available from the state.

3. Wethersfield • A committee was formed in December 2012 • Consisted of: • Teachers selected by WFT (elementary, middle and high rep) • Administrators • Central Office administrators • Board of Education representatives • Committee is tasked to: • Implement CT’s System for Educator Evaluation and Development (SEED) • Meet requirements of new legislation • Finalize a new Teacher Evaluation process for Wethersfield Public Schools based on SEED

4. Wethersfield’s Plan • Core Requirements (mandated legislation) • SEED Requirements • Wethersfield Teacher Evaluation Plan is closely aligned to SEED, but changes have been made that meet state standards (core requirements) • Committee is currently drafting new Teacher Evaluation Plan to submit to CSDE and BOE

5. When teachers succeed, students succeed * Research has proven that no school-level factor matters more to students’ success than high quality teachers. * Quality teacher evaluation drives: • valuable collaboration between evaluators and teachers • effective instruction • continuous teacher improvement • high standards for all learners * No single measure can tell the full story about a teacher’s performance.

6. Teacher Evaluation Criteria

7. Summary of Teacher Evaluation Criteria * Observations of Performance & Practice (40%) 1 goal * Parent Feedback via survey(10%) 1 goal * Student Growth and Development (45%) 2 Student Learning Objectives (SLOS) * Whole School Student Learning Indicators (5%) 1 goal

8. Illustration of Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation Student Growth and Development (45%) Whole-school Student Learning Indicators (5%) Observations of Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Teacher Practice Rating (50%) Student Outcome Rating (50%) All of these factors are combined to reach your final annual rating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).

9. Criteria #1 – 40%Teacher Performance and Practice • Forty percent (40%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on observations of teacher Practice and Performance. • Requirements of Evidence: • 1. Teacher sets one goal (aligned to rubric). • Goal provides focus for: • a. Observation(s) • b. Artifacts, conferences

10. Number of Observations Implementation Year • Formal Observation: • Pre-conference • Scheduled • Minimum 30 minutes • Post Conference • Written feedback • In-Formal Observation: • Unscheduled • Minimum 10 minutes • Followed by feedback

11. Number of ObservationsSubsequent Years

12. Criteria #2 – 10%Whole School Parent Feedback Survey • Ten percent (10%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on whole school parent feedbackvia survey. • Process focuses on: • 1. Conducting whole-school parent survey • 2. Determining school-level parent goals based on survey • feedback • 3. Teacher and evaluator identifying one related parent • engagement goal • 4. Measuring progress

13. Illustration of Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation Student Growth and Development (45%) Whole-school Student Learning Indicators (5%) Observations of Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) All of these factors are combined to reach your final annual rating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).

14. Criteria #3 – 45%Student Growth and Development • One half (22.5%) of the indicators of academic growth and development used as evidence of whether goals/objectives are met shall be based on: • *The state test for those teaching tested grades and • subjects (or) • *For other grades and subject areas another • standardized indicator where available.

15. Criteria #3 - Continued…Student Growth and Development • For the other half (22.5%) of the indicators of academic growth and development, there may be: • * A maximum of one additional standardized • indicator, if there is mutual agreement • * A minimum of one non-standardized indicator

16. Criteria - #3 Creating (S)tudent (L)earning (O)bjectives Will your students take the CMT or CAPT in your subject area? YES Set one standardized SLO and one non-standardized SLO YES NO Will your students take another standardized assessment or district assessment? Set two non-standardized SLOs NO

17. Student Learning Objectives Student Learning Objectives will support teachers in using a planning cycle. SLO Phase 2: Set goals for student learning SLO Phase 1: Learn about this year’s students SLO Phase 3: Monitor students’ progress SLO Phase 4: Assess student outcomes relative to goals

18. (I)ndicatorsof (A)cademic (G)rowthand (D)evelopment (IAGDs) Each of the 2 SLO’s must include at least one IAGD. IAGDs: 1. Specific evidence 2. Quantitative targets 3. Demonstrate whether the objective was met

19. Example of SLOs The following are examples of Student Learning Objectives:

20. Examples of IAGDs

21. Examples of IAGDs - Continued

22. Criteria #4 – 5%Whole School Learning Indicator • Five percent (5%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based on whole-school student learning indicators. • Purpose: • Teachers are part of a learning community, as such, responsibility for learning is shared among all of the school’s staff. This measurement is designed to reflect the importance of this shared responsibility.

23. Teacher Evaluation Process The target date for Goal Setting & Planning is October 15 Target date for End-of Year is one week before the last student day (must be completed by June 30)

24. Levels of PerformanceLegislated Four Levels of Performance4 Exemplary - Substantially exceeding indicators of performance3 Proficient - Meeting indicators of performance2 Developing - Meeting some indicators of performance but not others1 Below standard - Not meeting indicators of performance

25. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Growth and Development (45%) Parent Feedback (10%) Whole-school Student Learning Indicators (5%) Observations of Performance and Practice (40%) Outcome Rating (50%) Practice Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a holistically determined Summative Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant)

26. Summative Rating Matrixto Final Rating

27. Support and Development for Teachers • Evaluation-based Professional Growth Plan • Improvement and Remediation Plan • Career Development and Growth

28. Support and Development for Teachers • Linked to evaluation process outcomes related to: • - student learning • - observation of professional practice • - results of stakeholder feedback • Can occur at multiple points during the year • Linked to performance levels

29. Support and Development Professional Learning Opportunities/Examples • Targeted professional development • External learning opportunities • Differentiated career pathway • Coaching • Assisting peers • Leading data teams • Leading professional development • Leading book study groups