RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design ACEES Meeting September 13, 2010

Meeting Agenda • RI Model Development Update • Race to the Top implications • AFT Collaboration • Plan for moving into the post-design phase • Working group progress updates (General) • Teacher Professional Practice • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Professional Responsibilities • Draft framework for discussion and feedback • Student Learning • New/refined content for discussion and feedback

Race to the Top: Next Steps • RI will receive $75M to implement its theory of action • November 22- RI must submit its scope of work and all LEA scopes of work to USDoE • RTTT funding will support the evaluation work

RI Model – AFT Innovation Grant Joint Effort • Timeline and process for decision making • Implications for districts

Post-design phase Model synthesis Content review and refinement based on feedback RI Model v.1.0 ready for field testing (test usability) Model refinement based on testing outcomes and feedback Working groups wrap up Currently scheduled ACEES meetings Potential additional ACEES meetings Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May • What is ACEES role in this post-design phase? • We would like for ACEES to continue to provide feedback and act in an advisory capacity as the model is refined • Potential additional meeting dates: Early December, Mid February, Late March, Early May

Process Group • Summary • Continued to refine the details of the evaluation process • Consensus reached around: • Purpose and structure of the evaluation conferences • Sources of evidence to be used in evaluation • Frequency and method of classroom observations • Use of primary and complementary evaluators • Inclusion of individual development plans and teacher self-assessment in the evaluation process • Discussion ongoing about: • Tools and instrumentation • Specific criteria for evaluators • Method for determining a final evaluation rating • Next steps • Continued refinement of specific details, including unresolved discussion items

Student Learning Group • Summary • Consensus reached on the general structure/framework of the goal attainment process • Continued refinement of the goal attainment process details, including mapping out: • Specific activities and tasks against a timeline • Decision-makers (state, district, or school-level) for each step of the goal attainment process • Broad areas of concrete tools and guidance needed from RIDE • Ongoing discussion of the scoring methodology for the goal attainment process • Next steps • Continued refinement of the goal attainment process based on ACEES feedback, adding specificity to the general framework and working toward consensus on the scoring methodology

Teacher Professional Practice Group • Summary • Reached consensus on a set of key competencies (organized under four domains) for inclusion in the RI Model’s framework for teacher professional practices • Reached consensus on using a four-point scale to measure teacher performance • Started discussion of the language to be used to describe the indicators for each competency • Next steps • Revise the framework based on ACEES feedback • Begin drafting the indicators under each competency for all four performance levels

Administrator Professional Practice Group • Summary • Reached consensus that the rubric for Administrator Professional Practice should be based on Domains 1 to 4 of the RIELS (Domains 5 and 6 are covered in Professional Responsibilities) • Built an initial draft evaluation rubric that describes, for each Element in each Domain, four levels of performance • For each Element, listed the potential evidence that could be relied on in rating performance • Next steps • Discuss the draft with a RI Superintendent prior to next working group meeting, so that we have feedback from an evaluator • Discuss important prefatory statements and guidelines • Generate a list of words that need to be in a glossary • Get the group’s advice on process and development

Professional Responsibilities Group • Summary • Reached consensus on a set of professional responsibilities (organized under five domains) based on RI teaching and leadership standards as well as the code of professional responsibility • Reached consensus on measuring performance at three levels; some competencies may not be defined at each level • Drafted language describing performance on each professional responsibility at multiple levels, completing a draft rubric • Next steps • Revise the framework language based on ACEES feedback • Determine possible sources of evidence, explore scoring options

Support and Development Group • Summary • Consensus reached about: • Completing a self-assessment and reflection prior to the first evaluation conference • Every teacher using a professional growth plan containing at least 3 specific, measureable professional growth goals • Development and refinement of sample tools to be used for self-assessment and reflection as well as a professional growth plan template • Identified initial inventory of job-embedded support and development activities for various performance levels: • Ex: Analyzing student work using defined protocols, peer mentoring, classroom observations of model classrooms • Next steps • Continued refinement of self-assessment and reflection tools and professional growth plan template • Concrete decisions about how the process is differentiated based on performance level

District Developed Group September 22: Meeting with districts to provide feedback October: District submissions for approval December: Final district submissions for approval

Teacher Professional Practice Framework Draft • Current draft of the teacher professional practice framework includes a set of four domains (Planning & Preparation; Classroom Instruction; Assessment, Reflection & Improvement; and Classroom Environment) and a set of teacher competencies under each domain • The competencies measure teacher behaviors that can be assessed through observation or document/artifact review • The competencies in this draft are based off of a detailed review and discussion of RI Professional Teaching Standards, INTASC Draft Standards, and a variety of external examples, including Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching and DC Public Schools’ Teaching and Learning Framework. • As articulated in the System Design Principles, the framework is aligned to the RIPTS.

Teacher Professional Practice Draft Framework – Alignment to RIPTS

Teacher Professional Practice Discussion Questions • Does the framework accurately define the competencies of professional practice that should be assessed? If not, what is missing or overrepresented? • Can the framework be applied to all teachers regardless of experience, grade or subject taught?

Professional Responsibilities Framework Draft • Current draft of the professional responsibilities framework includes a set of five domains and a set of educator competencies under each domain • The competencies measure educator behaviors that are not knowledge- or skill-based • The competencies in this draft are based off of a detailed review and discussion of RI Professional Teaching Standards, RI Educational Leadership Standards, RI Code of Professional Responsibility, and a variety of external examples, including the Professionalism domain of Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching and relevant domains of the DC Public Schools’ Teaching and Learning Framework. • The competencies are currently set to be assessed on a scale of “Exceeds expectations”, “Meets expectations”, and “Does not meet expectations”.

Professional Responsibilities Discussion Questions • Does the framework accurately define the competencies of professional responsibilities? If not, what is missing or overrepresented? • Can the framework be applied to all Rhode Island educators?

Overarching Student Learning Framework The student learning rating is determined by a combination of different sources of evidence of student learning. These sources fall into three categories: Category 1: Student growth on state standardized tests (e.g., NECAP, PARCC) Category 2: Student growth on standardized district-wide tests (e.g., NWEA, AP exams, Stanford-10, ACCESS, etc.) Category 3: Other local school-, administrator-, or teacher-selected measures of student performance Working Group’s area of focus Measured using a growth model Used with a goal attainment process

Student Learning Rating Combinations • Teacher Group: NECAP data available • Teacher Group: NECAP data unavailable Growth model score + Goal attainment score Goal attainment score + + School or group-wide measure School or group-wide measure Final student learning rating Final student learning rating

Overall Goal Attainment Process Evaluation Conferences Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun • Determination of Goal Attainment • Evidence of student learning reviewed • Evaluator makes final determination of the degree to which each goal has been met based on judgment of the assessment outcomes • Goal Setting Process • Teacher sets at least one academic goal for each class and/or groups of students • Goals based on students’ starting points and pre-determined priority standards/skills • Assessment method(s) that will be used to measure student progress selected • Check in • Student progress to date assessed using any and all pieces of evidence available • Goals and/or assessment method(s) adjusted based on additional student information Beginning of year goal-setting conference End of year summative evaluation conference Mid-year check-in conference Goal Attainment Process

Goal Attainment Process Discussion Questions • What do you like about the goal attainment process? What are its strengths? • What are its limitations? What concerns do you have about the process itself or the goal attainment activities themselves? • The goal attainment process is designed to give teachers and principals maximum control and flexibility over their students’ learning goals. What kind of guidance, if any, is needed from the district throughout this process? From RIDE?

Next Steps • Meeting: September 27, 4-7pm • Location: PAFF Auditorium, 1st floor Shepard Building • Review of RI Model synthesis (to date) • Review of final rating calculation methodology • Website- www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation

RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design