RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

1. RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design ACEES Meeting December 6, 2010

2. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

3. Updates • Collaboration with AFT • Next steps for ACEES

4. Post-design phase Model synthesis Model refinement based on testing outcomes and feedback; training begins Content review and refinement based on feedback RI Model v.1.0 ready for field testing (test usability) Working groups wrap up • ACEES met its original charge: • Review and provide critical feedback to RIDE and the working groups on all key evaluation system deliverables • Provide direction to the working groups for overall system development through the design principles • ACEES will meet next month to review Version .5 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

5. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

6. Considerations for final summative ratings • The Evaluation System Standards require: • 4 different summative rating categories (Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective and Ineffective) • Student learning plays a predominant role in reaching a final summative rating • All components (professional practice, professional responsibilities and student learning) contribute to the final summative rating in an appropriate manner FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

7. Evaluations will be based on multiple sources of information Individual ratings in each of these components will be combined to produce a final, summative evaluation rating of: Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, or Ineffective.

8. Individual components will be combined using a matrix approach INTERNAL MATRIX VALUES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY * For teachers who do not have growth model results, the student learning rating will consist entirely of their goal attainment average. Sample Sample Sample * For teachers who do not have growth model results, the student learning rating will consist entirely of their goal attainment average.

9. Discussion Questions • What questions do you have about the matrix approach? • To what extent does the matrix approach provide a picture to an educator about his/her performance? • Does the matrix help the educator "know" or have an understanding of their performance? • What questions or concerns does this raise?

10. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

11. All teachers will receive a “student learning” rating based on multiple data sources. Different combinations of data will be available for different teachers. This means that the mix of assessments used may vary from teacher to teacher. However, the “student learning” rating will always be based on more than one data source. Our goal is to create the most complete picture we can of every teacher’s performance.

12. Overview • Every teacher evaluated under the RI model will be required to set student learning goals for the students that they teach. • For teachers without NECAP growth data, these student learning goals will be the primary factor in their student learning rating. • Goals will be individualized, but schools and districts will work toward consistency in goal setting process. • Opportunity for districts and schools to indentify common assessments and build consistency in goal setting • process.

13. Work Session • With your table group, review the questions on your table. • Assign a recorder to take notes. • Record your key ideas on chart paper. Be prepared to share out with other groups.

14. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

15. Discussion Questions • What trends – questions or concerns – are you hearing from the field? • Which audiences need more information? What content? • How have you addressed concerns? • Has it been effective?

16. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

17. Collective Bargaining Agreements

18. Meeting Agenda • Updates • Final Summative Ratings • Student Learning • Communication • Collective Bargaining Agreements • Next Steps

19. Next Steps • Next meeting: January 13, 2011 from 4:30 – 6:30 pm • Location: PAFF Auditorium • Review of field testing draft of RI Model • Review how ACEES feedback has been incorporated • West Bay and East Bay forums in January • Check for updates: www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation