Section I Evaluation for Professional Growth

1. Section I Evaluation for Professional Growth

2. Evaluation for Professional Growth – A New System in New Mexico

3. A New Context for Evaluation • New understandings about the importance of having a quality teacher in every classroom • NCLB and the emphasis on accountability • The achievement gap • Supervision and evaluation as an ethical issue • New 3-Tiered Licensure System in New Mexico implemented July 1, 2004

4. Traditional Evaluation Systems • Outdated evaluative criteria • Limited administrator expertise • Little shared understanding of what constitutes good teaching • One-way communication • Low levels of trust between teachers and administrators

5. Traditional Process • One or two observations by a supervisor who writes up findings, provides feedback to the teacher, writes an evaluation for the teacher’s file

6. The Result • Atmosphere of fear • Culture where it is not safe to take risks • Lack of respect for the administrator’s opinion • Evaluation viewed as a meaningless exercise • Few incentives for professional growth • No real incentives for participation in a professional learning community

7. Three-Tiered System • New roles for teachers and administrators • Based on increased understandings of adult learning • Based on increased awareness of the importance & complexity of teaching

8. Three-Tiered System • Richer forms of data collection and more self-reflection are necessary • Increased focus on the development of teacher expertise (from novice to expert) • New understandings about professional development • Link between professional development plans and evaluation • Combines formative and summative evaluation

9. To assist in identifying and building upon teacher strengths To serve as the basis for the improvement of instruction To develop remediation goals To enhance the implementation of curriculum To provide meaningful professional development To address accountability and teacher quality To support fair, valid and legal decisions for rehire, promotion decisions or termination Supports the Many Purposes of Evaluation

10. Test Your Knowledge Name the nine (9) New Mexico Professional Teacher Competencies

11. Nine Competencies • Knowledge • Variety • Communication • Growth and Development • Assessment • Management • Diversity • Change • Community

12. Differentiated Indicators for each Licensure Levels • Level I – Provisional Teacher • Level II – Professional Teacher • Level III – Master Teacher “The school principal shall observe each teacher’s classroom practice at least once annually to determine the teacher’s ability to demonstrate state adopted competencies and indicators for each teacher’s licensure level.” • Title 6, Chapter 69, Part 4

13. Tied to a Professional Development Plan “Every public school teacher must have an annual performance evaluation based on an annual professional development plan . . . Annual performance evaluations shall be based on, among other things, how well the PDP was carried out and the measurable objectives were achieved.” • Title 6, Chapter 69, Part 4

14. The Professional Development Plan (PDP) • Based on expectation for teacher development over time • Requires reflective practice • Based on learning needs of students • Developed collaboratively (teacher/principal) each year by 40th day of school (October 17, 2007) • Must include “measurable objectives” • Can include individual, school, and district goals

15. The PDP (continued) • Teacher is responsible for documenting (providing evidence) about how he/she meets the objectives • Teacher is responsible for completing a one-page written reflection annually • Principal is responsible for reviewing the PDP evidence and written reflection annually with the teacher • Principal is responsible for completing a Formative Assessment

16. The PDP for Level I: Provisional Teacher • One or more measurable objectives focused on classroom-based issues • May not include multi-year objectives • Objectives should be linked to previous annual evaluations • A clear written plan of actions with specific projects, resources, timelines, artifacts, & intended impact • A clear plan for determining progress at regular intervals • Active involvement of a mentor • Third, Fourth, or Fifth year should focus on the Professional Development Dossier (PDD)

17. The PDP for Level II – Professional Teacher Same as Level I except: • Objectives should address areas associated with more experienced teachers • May involve collaboration with a colleague • Sources of evidence may include professional development experiences (conferences) & action research • Mentor support not required • Third year may focus on PDD • May include multiyear objectives

18. Level III – Master Teacher Same as Level II except: • Should include self-assessment information • Should focus on Level III goals (i.e. Contributions to the field, students taking responsibility for their own learning, integration of multiple source data to inform teacher practice, taking leadership roles in the improvement of instruction, conducting action research to improve learning of all students)

19. Licensure Advancement • A teacher must apply for Level II licensure at the end of five years of successful teaching at Level I (must complete formal mentoring program and submit a PDD). • A teacher may apply for Level III licensure after three years of successful teaching at Level II and completion of a master’s degree or NBPTS by submitting a PDD.

20. What is a PDD? • A Professional Development Dossier (PDD) is a process by which teachers demonstrate competency in the areas of instruction, student learning, and professional learning. • Requires collection of evidence and is writing-intensive. • Requires proof of satisfactory annual summative evaluation and verification by local superintendent of teacher’s fulfillment of all licensure requirements

21. The PDD “Teacher . . . dossiers tell a teacher’s story. They provide security and documentation about value, merit, and worth to a school district. They show that good teaching is a result of much preparation and individual initiative” (Peterson, 2000, p. 12).

22. “The distinction between portfolios and dossiers is nontrivial. Dossiers are much more compact, processed, and usable for judges of teacher quality” (Peterson, 2002, p. 242).

23. Highlights of Changes • New context for evaluation • New skills required (training for all administrators required every two years) • Teacher compensation tied to level of licensure • Level of licensure tied to teacher growth and demonstration of competency at each level • PDP’s developed by teachers (in collaboration with principals) to set goals and document professional growth

24. And some things remain the same. . . • Classroom observations to collect data • Local options to add criteria for evaluation • Annual summative (“comprehensive”) evaluations required for beginning teachers • Progressive Documentation Annual Formative (“status”) evaluations required for experienced teachers yearly with summative evaluations (“comprehensive”) evaluation required every 3 years • Professional Growth Plans (for deficiencies) – must be tied to summative evaluation