Understanding the Understanding the Wisconsin Educator Wisconsin Educator

Effectiveness SystemEffectiveness SystemMay 16, 2012

State Superintendent’s Advisory Council on Rural Schools, Libraries, and Communities

Julie Brilli, DirectorTeacher Education, Professional Development &

Licensingeducator.effectiveness@dpi.wi.gov

Presentation Overview

State Superintendent’s Vision

“Every Child a Graduate”

– Research shows that the greatest impact on student learning is teacher effectiveness; second only to that is the effectiveness of a principal.

– The primary purpose of this system is to support teachers and principals and provide the necessary resources for all educators to be successful.

“Done right, I believe the systems will improve student achievement and provide a tremendous benefit to

educators by identifying the strengths they bring to the profession, as well as areas that can be targeted for

improvement.”

THE DESIGN TEAM PROCESS

Educator Effectiveness

Charge of the Design Team

• To develop:– definitions of key guiding principles of a high-

quality educator effectiveness program, – model performance-based evaluation systems

for teachers and principals, – a regulatory framework for implementation

that includes how student achievement data will be used in context, and

– recommendations for methods to support improvement and incentives for performance.

Design Team

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)– (Bryan Kennedy)

Association of Wisconsin School Administrators– (Jim Lynch)

Office of the Governor– (Michael Brickman)

Professional Standards Council (PSC)– (Lisa Benz)

Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE)– (Julie Underwood)

Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (WAICU)– (Kathy Lake)

Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB)– (John Ashley)

Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA)– (Miles Turner)Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction- (Mike Thompson)

Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC)– (Mary Bell)

Design Team

• Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER)

• American Institutes for Research (AIR)• Great Lakes West (GLW)• National Comprehensive Center for Teacher

Quality (NCCTQ)

Further Informing the Work:• Wisconsin participation in the State Consortium on

Educator Effectiveness (SCEE) as part of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

• 28 states collaborating on the policies and practices to improve student learning with a focus on the effectiveness of our nation's educators

Supporting the Process

DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION

Educator Effectiveness

Educator Effectiveness Timeline

Five Phases of Work in Three Stages

Phase 1 – Design Phase (December 2010 to October 2011) – Design Team review of existing research and best practices– Major design features decided for teachers and principals– Publish Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness

Phase 2 – Development Phase (November 2011 – June 2012)– Convene State Superintendent’s Coordinating Council on Educator Effectiveness– Workgroups develop rubrics and process manuals for all elements of the system

Phase 3 – Developmental Pilot Phase (July 2012 – June 2013)– Train Pilot Districts, Support Pilot Districts, Evaluate Pilot– Revise and/or refine the model based upon data from pilot process– Evaluate model– Development of rubrics and process manuals for educators other than teachers

and principals

Phase 4 – Full Pilot Phase (July 2013 – June 2014)– Revise and/or refine model based upon data from pilot process– Expand pilot, training, and implementation– Evaluate model

Phase 5 – Implementation (July 2014 – June 2015)– Refine model based upon data from two year pilot– Train and prepare districts for statewide implementation– Statewide implementation of Educator Effectiveness system

THE FRAMEWORKEducator Effectiveness

Guiding Principles of the System

An educator evaluation system must deliver information that:– Guides effective educational practice that is

aligned with student learning and development– Documents evidence of effective educator

practice– Documents evidence of student learning– Informs appropriate professional development– Informs educator preparation programs– Supports a full range of human resource decisions– Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and

uniform across districts

Definition of Effective Educators

Effective TeacherEffective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

Effective PrincipalEffective Principal: An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

Seamless Transitions

Standards for Teacher Practice

The Foundation for Teacher Practice

InTASC Teaching Standards (2011)

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Core Teaching Standards

2011 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards,

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Interstate_Teacher_Assessment_Consortium_(InTASC).html

Framework for Teacher Evaluation

Based on Charlotte Danielson’s Domains & Components

Domain 1: Planning and Preparation

Domain 2: The Classroom Environment

Domain 3: InstructionDomain 4: Professional

Responsibilities

Standards for Principal Practice

Foundation for Principal Practice

2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

Framework for Principal Evaluation

Subordinate functions of ISLLC standards

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-evaluation/Documents/Educational-Leadership-Policy-Standards-ISLLC-2008.pdf

Educator Practice

Teacher Practice

Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include:

Observations of teacher practice

Review of documentsSurveys and/or other data

sourcesDiscussions with the teacher

Principal Practice

Each component should be evaluated on multiple sources of evidence. These could include:

Observations of principal practice

Review of documentsInterviews with stakeholdersSurveys and/or other data

sourcesDiscussions with the principal

System Weights

EducatorPractice

StudentGrowth

Models of Practice Detail

(50% of evaluation)

Flexibility in the Framework

• Districts will have the flexibility to create their own rubrics for the EDUCATOR PRACTICE portion of the evaluation system if they choose to; the rubrics must be aligned to the state system.

• Application must be made to and approved by the State Superintendent in order to utilize an equivalent process to evaluate educator practice.

• The Equivalency Review Process will be developed in 2012-13 school year. Until the principal and teacher rubrics are fully developed, it is difficult to spell out criteria needed for an Equivalency Review Process.

Equivalency Review Process

Educator Practice - Teachers

The rubrics for teacher practice must be based on the InTASC standards and Danielson’s four domains.

Districts may combine components (but not domains) into fewer categories.

Districts may add domains and components.

Educator Practice - Principals

The rubrics for principal practice must be based on the ISLLC standards and the subordinate functions.

Student Outcome Detail

(50% of evaluation)

Models of Practice

District Choice

State Assessment – Value-Added Scores

District Assessment

Student Learning Objectives

School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle)Graduation (High School)

Student Outcome Weights – PK-8

State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs and other measures

Student Outcome Weights – 9-12

State assessment, district assessment, SLOs, and other measures SLOs and other measures

Educator Effectiveness System Matrix

1 2 3 4 5

1 * *

2 *

3

4 *

5 * *

Student Outcomes

Mod

els

of P

ract

ice

•Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.

Multiple Performance Categories

DevelopingDeveloping: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action

EffectiveEffective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development

ExemplaryExemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership

UNDERSTANDING PHASE 2Educator Effectiveness

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)– (Bryan Kennedy)

Association of Wisconsin School Administrators– (Jim Lynch)

Office of the Governor– (Michael Brickman)

Professional Standards Council (PSC)– (Lisa Benz)

Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE)– (Julie Underwood)

Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (WAICU)– (Kathy Lake)

Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB)– (Deb Gurke)

Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA)– (Jon Bales)

Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC)– (Dave Harswick)

CESA Statewide Network– (Jesse Harness)

CESA 6– (Joan Wade)

Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association (MTEA)– (Sid Hatch)

Southeastern Wisconsin Teacher Evaluation Consortium (SWTEC)– (Patricia Deklotz)

Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services (WCASS)– (Gary Myrah)

Wisconsin State Legislature– (The Honorable Steve Kestell)

Wisconsin State Legislature– (The Honorable Sondy Pope-Roberts)

Wisconsin State Senate– (The Honorable Timothy Cullen)

Wisconsin State Senate– (The Honorable Luther Olsen)

State Superintendent’s Coordinating Council

Fundamental Developmental Tasks

Teacher Practice Rubric Development

Principal Practice Rubric Development

Student/School Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

Data Systems Development & Management Framework

Pre-Pilot Process

Evaluation Process and Manuals

Work Teams of Phase 2

–Teacher Practice Work Team

–Principal Practice Work Team

–Student/School Learning Outcomes Work Team

–Data Systems & Management Work Team

Membership of Work TeamsRepresentation

from:

Practicing educators, board members, professional organization members, and educator preparation program faculty nominated by members of the Coordinating Council

Diverse regions of the state: central, northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast, etc.

Diverse district sizes and locations: rural, suburban, urban

Diverse school levels: elementary, middle, high, etc.

Diverse content areas: science, English/language arts, math, social studies, special education, English as a second language, music, art, etc.

Teacher Practice Work Team

– Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012

– Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012

– Development of Draft Teacher Practice Evaluation Manual to delineate the process for evaluating teacher practice by the end of July 2012

Actions & Products:

– Rubric review, development, adaptation, and/or adoption

• Draft teacher rubric developed by March 2012

• Final rubric completed by May 2012

– Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012

Principal Practice Work Team

Actions & Products:

– Rubric review & adaptation.

• Draft principal rubric developed by March 2012

• Final rubric completed by May 2012

– Identification of evidence sources determined by end of April 2012

– Evidence & rubric weight scoring determination process completed by end of June 2012

– Evidence collection forms & processes completed by end of June 2012

– Development of Draft Teacher Practice Evaluation Manual to delineate the process for evaluating teacher practice by the end of July 2012

Student/School Learning Outcomes Work Team

Actions & Products:Create “checklist” for selecting and

creating SLOs by reviewing existing versions and modify as necessary:

• Denver• Rhode Island• Charlotte-Mecklenburg• Austin

Create a scoring rubric for evaluators (principals and/or content experts) to use in evaluating SLO evidence submitted by teachers; beginning with guidance developed previously by other districts and states, and adapting as necessary.

Development of Draft SLO Process Manual to delineate the process for utilizing SLOs in the evaluation of teachers and principals by the end of July 2012

This manual describes the entire process for:

• Creating SLOs• Gathering evidence• Rating evidence• Timelines for each

step in the process

UNDERSTANDING PHASE 3Educator Effectiveness

Practice and SLO Pilot Evaluation

An evaluation design and pilot process will need to be determined for the 2012-2013 pilot testing of the teacher and principal practice measures and SLO measures.

This evaluation plan will be initiated in May and June of 2012 and will be completed during the summer of 2012 in preparation for pilots to begin in Fall 2012.

Phase 3 Work

Pilots, Evaluation of Pilots, Refinement of Model (July 2012 – June 2013)– Teacher Practice– Principal Practice– Student/School Learning Outcomes– Data Systems & Management

Get Involved: Volunteer to serve as a pilot school and/or district

Watch for an upcoming email inviting schools and/or districts to apply for consideration to participate in the pilot

STATE & FEDERAL POLICYEducator Effectiveness

2011 Wisconsin Act 166

State legislation requires that:– DPI develop a state model evaluation system for

teachers and principals– DPI submit an estimate on the cost of creating and

maintaining a state model system for the 2013-2015 biennial budget

– Fifty percent of the total evaluation score assigned to a teacher or principal be based on measures of student performance, and fifty percent based upon observation/ evidence of practice

– Every school district implement an evaluation process, consistent with this legislation, by 2014-2015

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb461

ESEA Waivers

• USED is offering states the opportunity to waive certain ESEA/NCLB provisions. In exchange, states must implement:– career-and-college ready standards & assessment

system– differentiated accountability system– educator effectiveness system

• Wisconsin’s waiver plans are based entirely on the Framework for Educator Effectiveness. – Design Team recommendations were in alignment with

the waiver requirements around educator effectiveness

– As such, the plans in the waiver mirror the Framework

Staying Informed and Involved

Getting Involved:

Districts will be invited to serve as pilot school(s) and/or a pilot district Emails sent to districts on Monday, May 14th from

dpiformsmanagment.

Registration Due on Friday, May 25th at 3 PM

Questions about the pilot/registration?Kris Joannes- Education Consultant

kristin.joannes@dpi.wi.gov608.267.2348

Getting Involved in the Developmental Pilot

Districts will be invited to serve as pilot school(s) and/or a pilot district

Emails sent to districts on Monday, May 14th from dpiformsmanagment.

Registration Due on Friday, May 25th at 3 PM

Questions about the pilot/registration?Kris Joannes- Education Consultant

kristin.joannes@dpi.wi.gov608.267.2348