1 / 38

In partnership with

In partnership with. Background. Legislated by Act 166 Federal push: part of ESEA flexibility waiver Fully functional performance-based evaluation system in place for 2014-15 50% on process/practice and 50% on product Equivalency option for process/practice CESA 6/Dr. James Stronge

levi
Download Presentation

In partnership with

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. In partnership with

  2. Background • Legislated by Act 166 • Federal push: part of ESEA flexibility waiver • Fully functional performance-based evaluation system in place for 2014-15 • 50% on process/practice and 50% on product • Equivalency option for process/practice • CESA 6/Dr. James Stronge • 6 Performance Standards

  3. Educator Evaluation Process Product • Teachers • InTASC standards; • Danielson’s 4 domains and 22 components • Principals • ISLLC standards • -------------------------------- • CESA 6 Model • 6 performance standards for teachers, ed specialists, and principals • Aligned to Danielson & national standards • Potential Data Sources: • Statewide assessments • Districtwide assessments • Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) • Graduation data • Other 50% 50% DPI Framework Models of Practice Student Outcomes

  4. The Research Research on effective vs. ineffective teachers and leaders clearly indicates there is a great cost to student learning as a result of having ineffective teachers and leaders in our school.

  5. What factor has the largest effect on student achievement?

  6. What factor had the largest effect on student achievement?

  7. Dallas Research: Teacher Quality 4th Grade Math Achievement Dallas, Texas data: 2800-3200 students per cohort Comparison of 3 “highly effective” & 3 “ineffective” teachers (Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997)

  8. Dallas Research: Teacher Quality 4th Grade Reading Achievement Dallas, Texas data: 2800-3200 students per cohort Comparison of 3 “highly effective” & 3 “ineffective” teachers (Jordan, Mendro, & Weerasinghe, 1997)

  9. Sequence of Effective Teachers 52-54 percentile points difference over 3 years Low Low Low High High High Sanders & Rivers (1996)

  10. Sequence of Effective Teachers High Low Low 13 percentile points difference High High High Sanders & Rivers (1996)

  11. Residual Effect Two years of effective teachers could not remediate the achievement loss caused by one year with a poor teacher. Mendro, Jordan, Gomez, Anderson, & Bembry (1998)

  12. Time in the School Year Neededto Achieve the Same Amount of Learning 75th Percentile Teacher 25th Percentile Teacher 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Years Needed Leigh, Economics of Education Review (2010)

  13. Time in the School Year Neededto Achieve the Same Amount of Learning 90th Percentile Teacher 10th Percentile Teacher 0 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 Years Needed Leigh, Economics of Education Review (2010)

  14. Annual Student Achievement Gains Class Size Reduction: 24:1 to 15:1 Teacher Quality Improvement: 25th vs. 75th percentile Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company; Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., Tucker, P.D., & Grant, L.W.; Retrieved from: http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/ukireland/publications/pdf/ Education_report.pdf

  15. Spillover Effect Student achievement rises across a grade when a high-quality teacher comes on board: one-tenth to one-fifth the impact of replacing the students’ own teacher! Jackon & Bruegmann, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (2009)

  16. Effectiveness is the goal. Evaluation is merely the means. Effectiveness Project

  17. Teachers Educational Specialists School Administrators (principals) Who Will Be Involved?

  18. Effectiveness Project • What is the basis of the evaluation? • How will performance be documented? • How will performance be rated?

  19. Question 1

  20. Performance Standards Teacher Educational Specialist Professional Knowledge Communication & Collaboration Assessment Program Planning & Management Program Delivery Professionalism • Professional Knowledge • Instructional Planning • Instructional Delivery • Assessment for/of Learning • Learning Environment • Professionalism

  21. Question 2

  22. Multiple Data Sources at-a-glance Everything is housed in an electronic database: OASYS

  23. Data ManagementMy Learning Plan OASYS

  24. Data Collection Responsibilities

  25. Observations • May take a variety of forms • Formal observation • Informal observation • Walk-through observation • Announced or unannounced • May occur in a variety of settings • Classroom environment • Non-classroom settings

  26. Formal Observations • Directly focused on teacher performance standards • Announced or unannounced • at least 20 minutes in duration • Teachers observed at least twice per year • Additional observations at evaluator’s discretion • At least one pre-observation conference for teachers during their first year in district • Evaluator feedback during post-observation conference • Observation forms kept in OASYS database

  27. Documentation Log • Evidence of performance related to specific standards • Educator’s voice in the process • Complements classroom observation • Includes both specific required artifacts and teacher-selected artifacts • Emphasis is on quality, not quantity • Collected throughout the year • Reviewed by evaluator by mid-year for probationary teachers; by early May for all teachers • Artifacts uploaded into OASYS database

  28. Teacher Artifact Examples • Professionalism • Transcript • PD certificate • Instructional Planning • Differentiation in lesson plan • Instructional Delivery • Video/audio of instructional unit • Sample work • Assessment • Sample of baseline and periodic assessments* • Learning Environment • Student survey information* • Schedule of daily routine • Professionalism • PD log* • Parent communication log* * Required artifact

  29. Student Surveys • Provide students’ perceptions of how teacher is performing -- direct knowledge of classroom practices • All teachers survey students twice per year • Age considerations for survey • Surveys are anonymous • Actual responses seen only by individual teacher • Teachers fill out Student Survey Growth Plan and Student Survey Analysis and include in documentation log

  30. Self-Assessment of Professional Practice • Reflect on effectiveness and adequacy of practice • Based on each performance standard • Consider performance indicators for examples of behaviors exemplifying each standard • One area of strength per standard • One area of growth, along with strategies for growth, per standard

  31. Student Learning Objectives • Detailed, measureable goals for student academic growth • Set at the beginning of the year • Based on SMART goal format • Individual teacher or group goals • Classroom or subsets of students • Approved by principal/supervisor • Mid-year check point • End-of-year evaluation – how did we do?

  32. Question 3

  33. Evaluations

  34. Terms used in Rating Scale

  35. Questionson the process?

  36. Look Fors & Red Flags • “Look Fors” • What do we WANT to see in each standard? • Exemplary behaviors • “Red Flags” • What should we NOT see? • What is cause for alarm or concern?

  37. ACTIVITY • Groups of 6 – one group per standard • Identify a recorder • 2 minutes at each standard • Document look forsAND red flags • Rotate to the next standard • Last reporter at each standard will report out to the large group

  38. Additional Questions? Thank you!

More Related