EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90 TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS July 12, 2012 1.
-
Upload
morgan-woods -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90 TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION SYSTEMS July 12, 2012 1.
EDUTALK: PUBLIC LAW 90TEACHER & SCHOOL LEADER
EVALUATION SYSTEMS
July 12, 2012
1
• Intro Activity• PAST: Revisiting Past Work• PRESENT: Understanding Systems• FUTURE: Next Steps• Wrap-Up
TONIGHT2
INTRO ACTIVITY3
Where we are In regards to PL90, on your post-its,
please write:One Positive RemarkOne ConcernOne Question
2011 Legislative Session
PAST4
SB 1 SEA 1 PL 905
Evaluation SystemsRISETAPMcREL – See handoutPAR – See handout
A Process for Developing a System: IN-TASS
PRESENT6
RISE7
IDOE-developed model for PL 90
Created by the Indiana Teacher Evaluation Cabinet, comprised of a group of educators across the state.
Teachers divided into 3 groups: GROUP 1: At least ½ of classes taught receive
Indiana Growth Model data GROUP 2: Less than ½ of classes taught receive
Indiana Growth Model data GROUP 3: No classes receive Indiana Growth
Model data (High school teachers)
RISE: TWO MAJOR COMPONENTS8
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
Professional Practice
Student Learning
RISE: EVALUATORS9
Who assesses teacher performance on the Teacher Effectiveness Rubric?
oEach teacher assigned to a Lead/Primary Evaluator
oSecondary Evaluators recommended; not required
oAll evaluators must be trained in RISE o Min. 24 hours of training
RISE: PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE CYCLE
10
Professional Professional Development Development
GoalsGoals•Teachers set Teachers set beginning of year beginning of year professional professional development goals development goals (specific & (specific & measurable), using measurable), using RISE rubricRISE rubric
Pre-Pre-Conference Conference (OPTIONAL)(OPTIONAL)•Before Before observation observation to discuss to discuss lesson and lesson and class.class.
Extended Extended Observation Observation (REQUIRED(REQUIRED))
•At least 2 per year (1 At least 2 per year (1 each semester)each semester)•At least 40 min, may At least 40 min, may span 2 class periodsspan 2 class periods•Lead evaluator must Lead evaluator must conduct at least oneconduct at least one
Mid-Year Mid-Year Conference Conference (OPTIONAL)(OPTIONAL)
•Teachers reflect on Teachers reflect on progress to goal with progress to goal with evaluatorevaluator
Summative Summative Conference Conference (REQUIRED)(REQUIRED)
•Discuss year-long Discuss year-long performance leading performance leading to summative ratingto summative rating
Short Observation Short Observation (REQUIRED(REQUIRED))
•At least 10 min; 3 At least 10 min; 3 per year (spread per year (spread across both across both semesters); semesters); unannouncedunannounced•Lead evaluator must Lead evaluator must conduct at least oneconduct at least one•No conferencing No conferencing unless requested by unless requested by teacher teacher
Post Conference Post Conference (REQUIRED)(REQUIRED)
•Completed within Completed within 5 school days 5 school days after each after each extended extended observationobservation
RISE: TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RUBRIC
11
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
After a teacher has receive 5 evaluations for the year (2 extended, 3 short), summative rubric scores for each of the domains are weighted by the following system. Note the emphasis on instruction.
Teacher Effectiveness Rubric
Teacher Effectiveness Rubric
RISE: INDIANA GROWTH MODEL (IGM) DATA
12
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
RISE: STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES
13
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
Student Learning ObjectivesStudent Learning Objectives
Class Objective: E.g. Students will achieve 80% mastery of 11th grade ELA standards.
Targeted Objective: E.g. These 5 students will achieve 40% growth of standards 1, 2, 3, 4.
PRE-APPROVED (must be used if available):TIER 1 (most confidence): State Assessment (ISTEP, ECA, LAS Links, etc.)TIER 2: Common Corporation Assessments (created or purchased)Must be approved by evaluator: TIER 3: Common School Assessments (created/purchased)TIER 4: Classroom Assessment
For the 1st year of implement-ation, teachers with IGM data are responsible for these objectives for only ONE class
RISE: SCHOOL-WIDE LEARNING14
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
RISE: SUMMATIVE SCORING15
Component / Group
Score 1-4
Group 1 Teachers: at
least ½ classes taught can receive IGM
data
Group 2 Teachers: less than ½ classes
taught can receive IGM
data
Group 3 Teachers (all high school):
no classes can receive IGM
dataTeacher
Effectiveness Rubric (TER)
50% 60% 75%
Growth Model Data (IGM)
35% 20% N/A
Student Learning Objectives (SLO)
10% 15% 20%
School-wide Learning (SWL)
5% 5% 5%
Final Score Highly Effective: 3.5 – 4.0 points Effective: 2.5 – 3.49 pointsRanges: Needs Improvement: 1.75 – 2.49 points Ineffective: 1.0 – 1.74 points
4-- HIGHLY EFFECTIVE (HE): Consistently exceeds expectations
3—EFFECTIVE (E): Consistently meets expectations
2—NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (NI): Room for growth in meeting expectations
1—INEFFECTIVE (I): Consistently fails to meet expectations
RISE RESOURCES16
Indiana Department of Education: http://www.riseindiana.org RISE
Evaluation and Development System: Evaluator and Teacher Handbook, Version 1.0.
RISE Evaluation and Development System: Student Learning Objectives Handbook.
RISE Teacher Modules (Series of short videos) http://
www.doe.in.gov/improvement/educator-effectiveness/rise-resources-teachers
Email [email protected]
Central Indiana Education Service Center (CIESC) Debbie Fish, Professional Learning [email protected] 317-387-7102
TAP17
Multiple Multiple Career Career PathsPaths
InstructionaInstructionally Focused lly Focused AccountabiliAccountabili
tyty
PerformancPerformance-Based e-Based
CompensatiCompensationon
Ongoing Ongoing Applied Applied
Professional Professional GrowthGrowth
Elements Elements of Successof Success
TAP: MULTIPLE CAREER PATHS 18
TAP: ONGOING APPLIED PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
19
TAP: RUBRIC DOMAINS20
Instructionally Focused Instructionally Focused AccountabilityAccountability
TAP: OBSERVATION CYCLE21
Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which Note: TAP uses a 360 degree evaluation model, which means that everyone receives feedback from multiple means that everyone receives feedback from multiple
sourcessources
TAP: TEACHER EVALUATIONS22
TAP23
Domain/Teacher
Score 1-5
Career Teacher Mentor Teacher
Master Teacher
Designing and Planning
Instruction
15% 15% 15%
Learning Environment
5% 5% 5%
Instruction 75% 60% 40%
Responsibilities
5% 20% 40%
Summative:
A teacher’s role determines the A teacher’s role determines the weight attributed to each domain weight attributed to each domain
in the TAP Rubricin the TAP Rubric
TAP: PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION
24
Performance-Based Performance-Based CompensationCompensation
• Bonus awards distributed in addition to regular salaries.
• Based on the amount of growth students make in one school year.
• Indiana TAP schools are allocated $2500/year for each teacher’s compensation plan, but teachers can earn more/ less.
• Data is only collected for students who have been in the TAP school for at least 126 school days
TAP: DETERMINING BONUS AWARDS
25
TAP RESOURCES26
Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL), University of Indianapolis: http://cell.uindy.edu/docs/TAP TAP System Overview Frequently Asked Questions Indiana TAP: The System for Teacher and Student A
dvancement TAP Implementation Manual
CELL, University of Indianapolis Jennifer Oliver, Indiana TAP Director [email protected] 317-791-5919
McREL Teacher Evaluation System (ISTA recommended)
http://www.mcrel.org/evalsystems/index.asp
PAR: Peer Assistance and ReviewA User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The Consulting Teacher’s Role: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~
ngt/par/design/ct_role.html A User’s Guide to Peer Assistance: The PAR Panel:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ngt/par/design/par_panel.html The Toledo Plan: http://www.tft250.org/the_toledo_plan.htmProfessional Growth System: Teacher Level:
http://www.nctq.org/docs/12-07.pdf
2 MORE MODELS (SEE HANDOUTS)
27
IN-TASS PROCESS28
Indiana Teacher Appraisal and Support System A process to guide districts and
stakeholders through key decision points in the creation of a system that assesses and supports effective teaching.
Not an evaluation model
IN-TASS PROCESS29
IN-TASS PROCESS30
IN-TASS PROCESS RESOURCES31
IN Teacher Appraisal System & Support (IN-TASS) http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=3503
Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) Policy Brief (forthcoming!)
Center on Education and Lifelong Learning (CELL), IU Bloomington Sandi Cole, Director of CELL [email protected] 812-855-6508
QUESTIONS32
RESOURCES ONLINE33
Download soon! www.stand.org/indiana/indiana-resource-center
Your feedback is important to us!