Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview

1. Alaska Educator Evaluation Overview

2. Background & Purpose • System Requirements • District Reporting • System Revision

3. Background Purpose Evaluation statutes, 1996 SFSF Assurances/ESEA Flexibility Waiver Significant changes to educator evaluations Student learning data provides essential information Help the educator grow professionally Improve the effectiveness of instruction Relate to the future employment of the educator

4. System Requirements Information, Evaluation, & Actions

5. Educator Evaluation System Requirements Results & Actions Evaluation Components Information Sources Performance Rating on each of the eight (8) standards. • Unsatisfactory • Basic • Proficient • Exemplary Plan of Improvement Unsatisfactory on 1 or more standard Understanding Student Needs Differentiation District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Basic on 2 or more standards Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Cultural Standards Proficient or higher on 7 standards and basic or higher on 1 standard. ______________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. _______________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district) Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Standard • Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) • Information from parents, students, etc. • Other information (as determined by the district) *Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth includingstatewide assessments

6. Information Sources Qualitative • Districts: • may select a nationally recognized observational framework approved by the department or continue to use the observation tools they have previously adopted. • must have a procedure and a form to collect information concerning an educator’s performance from students, parents, and other stakeholders. • may use other information like surveys, self-assessments, portfolios, etc. to gather information concerning an educator’s performance. • Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) • Information from parents, students, etc. • Other information (as determined by the district)

7. Information Sources • Districts must: • Select appropriate measures of student growth with the input of the educators being evaluated. • Establish standards and performance levels for student learning data. • Develop procedures based on objective & measurable criteria to ensure that data used accurately reflects student growth based on the educator performance. • Use statewide assessment data for teachers who provide instruction in the content areas assessed. Quantitative *Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth includingstatewide assessments

8. Aligning Information Sources to Evaluation Components Information Sources Educator Evaluation Components Performance Rating on each of the eight (8) standards. • Unsatisfactory • Basic • Proficient • Exemplary • Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) • Information from parents, students, etc. • Other information (as determined by the district) Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Cultural Standards Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice *Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth includingstatewide assessments Student Learning Standard

9. Levels of Performance Performance Rating on each of the 8 standards. • Unsatisfactory (U) • Basic (B) • Proficient (P) • Exemplary (E)

10. Inter-rater Reliability • A district’s evaluation training must include training that provides for an assurance of inter‐rater reliability.

11. Linking Levels of Performance to Results & Actions Plan of Improvement Unsatisfactory on 1 or more standard District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Basic on 2 or more standards Proficient or higher on 7 standards and basic or higher on 1 standard. ______________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. _______________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district)

12. Results & Actions Plan of Improvement If, at the conclusion of a plan of professional of improvement, the educator’s performance does not meet district standards the educator may be non-retained.

13. Results & Actions District Support or A Plan of Professional Growth (optional) If, at the conclusion of a plan of professional growth, the educator’s performance is not proficient or exemplary, the district may place the educator on a plan of improvement.

14. Results & Actions Professional Learning Focus for teachers & district

15. District Reporting Calculating Educators’ Overall Ratings

16. Evaluation Results vs. District Reporting Evaluation Results District Reporting Leads to professional learning, district support, and/or plan of improvement Confidential—between administrator(s) and the individual being evaluated Educator evaluations provide the information the district will use to calculate the overall rating Number and percentage of educators at each overall ratings will be reported to the department by each school district beginning in July, 2016 Information will only be made available to the public at levels that maintain individual confidentiality

17. Overall Rating & Student Learning Data • A district will evaluate whether an educator’s overall performance is exemplary, proficient, basic, or unsatisfactory. • A district shall include student learning data in teacher and administrator’s overall rating according to the following schedule: • SY 2015‐16 & SY 2016‐17, at least 20% • SY 2017‐18 at least 35% • SY 2018‐19 and after, at least 50% • A district may not give an educator an overall performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or lower on one or more of the content standards or other criteria for which evaluation is required.

18. District Reporting School Year 2015-2016 & School Year 2016-2017 Student Learning Standard • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Rating on each of the 7 Content Standards. • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Alaska Teacher Standards Understanding Student Needs Student Learning Standard 20% Differentiation Overall Rating Content Knowledge & Instruction Cultural Standards Assessment Content Standard 80% Learning Environment Student Learning Standards Family & Community Professional Practice Basic or Unsatisfactory on any one standard Proficient or higher on all standards Unsatisfactory Exemplary Basic Proficient Student Learning Standards Alaska Teacher Standards

19. District Reporting School Year 2017-2018 Student Learning Standard • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Rating on each of the 7 Content Standards. • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Alaska Teacher Standards Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Student Learning Standard 35% Content Knowledge & Instruction Content Standard 65% Cultural Standards Assessment Learning Environment Student Learning Standards Family & Community Professional Practice Basic or Unsatisfactory on any one standard Proficient or higher on all standards Exemplary Unsatisfactory Proficient Basic

20. District Reporting School Year 2018-2019 Student Learning Standard • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Rating on each of the 7 Content Standards. • Exemplary • Proficient • Basic • Unsatisfactory Alaska Teacher Standards Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Student Learning Standard 50% Content Standard 50% Cultural Standards Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Student Learning Standards Professional Practice Basic or Unsatisfactory on any one standard Proficient or higher on all standards Unsatisfactory Exemplary Basic Proficient

21. System Revision Stakeholders & Next Steps

22. Stakeholders • District School Board • Administrators • Teachers • Special Service Providers • Students • Parents • Community members

23. Next Steps • Build awareness around new requirements with all stakeholders • Compare existing system to new requirements • Identify gaps • Identify decision points • Develop a transition plan for district’s evaluation system