mississippi statewide teacher appraisal rubric (m … - 2016/sep 21 2015/m-star...to introduce the...
TRANSCRIPT
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR):
Reaching Professional Excellence
JCSB Presentation September 2015
1
Introduction
Teaching = Learning
Teaching ≠ Learning
2
Core Reason for Change of Evaluation System
Under previous systems of evaluating teachers’ work, the scores teachers have received have become separated from the key output – student learning.
3
Goals of the Session
To introduce the Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
To inform teachers about the evaluation process and performance expectations
4
RESEARCH & HISTORY
How did we get here?
5
Federal and State Theory of Action
Improved Evaluation
System
Improved Educator Quality
Improved Student
Outcomes
6
U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachers
Method for determining and identifying effective and
highly effective teachers:
Must include multiple measures
Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth
Supplemental measures may include multiple observation based instruments
7
TIF Grant Schools Calhoun County School District
• Bruce Upper Elementary
Columbus City School District
• Cook Elementary
• Franklin Academy
George County School District
• Central Elementary
Jackson Public School District
• Oak Forest Elementary
• Van Winkle Elementary
Jones County School District
• North Jones Elementary
Simpson County School District
• Mendenhall Junior High
• Magee Middle School
Wayne County School District
• Buckatunna Elementary
8
Implementation Timeline
Pilot Implementation……..…………………… 2011 – 2012
Focus Group Review and Feedback……… January – July 2012
Training on the New System……………….. July 2012 – July 2013
Field Test the System………………………….. 2013 – 2014
Full Implementation……………………………. 2014 – 2015
9
MS Teacher Evaluation Pie Chart
10
The National Perspective: Research and Reports
Research confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students’ achievement
Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways:
• Lack sufficient connection to goals for student learning and growth
• Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for improvement
• Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness
11
How is M-STAR different?
Traditional Observations
Evidence-Based Observations
Single time point for classroom
observation
Multiple time points for classroom observation
12
Traditional Observations
Evidence-Based Observations
Use of “checklist” tools
(strength/weakness, yes/no)
Use of rubric that defines instructional improvement on a
continuum
13
Traditional Observations
Evidence-Based Observations
High performance ratings given to
almost all teachers
Variations in performance ratings
among teachers
14
Traditional Observations
Evidence-Based Observations
Does not include student outcomes
Links teacher effectiveness to
student performance
15
THE TEACHER EVALUATION
PROCESS
What ‘s going to happen?
16
The Formal Observation Cycle
Pre-
Observation
Conference
Within 1-2 days
prior to observation
Post-
Observation
Conference
Within 1 week after observation
Observation
Follow-Up
Walk-through
Observation
Within 2 weeks after
post conference
REVIEW
• Lesson Plans
• Completed
pre-
observation
record
ASK
clarifying
questions
COMPLETE
selected scripting of lesson
Key Questions: What are
students learning? What is
the evidence for this
learning?
Evaluator Actions
REFLECT
• Organize notes
• Review
artifacts and
records
GIVE
concrete
next steps
OBSERVE
if next steps
have been
implemented
SUBMIT
• Lesson plan
• Completed
pre-observation
record
• Artifacts
PROVIDE
Background
information
SUBMIT
• Additional
artifacts if
applicable
DISCUSS
and
REFLECT
on lesson
Teacher Actions
IMPLEMENT
next steps/targeted
Professional
Development
COMPLETE
post-observation
record
EXPLAIN
Lesson in
more detail
17
The Five Components of the Teacher Observation Cycle
Teacher Self-Assessment
Walk-through Visits
Formal Observations/Conferences
Review of Artifacts
Student Survey (optional)
18
DOMAINS, STANDARDS, & PERFORMANCE LEVELS
How is M-STAR constructed?
19
M-STAR Overview
Five domains (weighted equally)
1. Planning
2. Assessment
3. Instruction
4. Learning Environment
5. Professional Responsibilities
20 Standards
Four levels of effectiveness:
1. Unsatisfactory
2. Emerging
3. Effective
4. Distinguished
20
21
Pla
nn
ing
1. Plans lessons that demonstrate knowledge of content and pedagogy
2. Plans lessons that meet the diversity of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills,
learning levels, language proficiencies, interests, and special needs
3. Selects instructional goals that incorporate higher-level learning for all students
4. Plans units of instruction that align with Mississippi’s state content standards, or
when applicable, the Common Core State Standards
Domain II Assessment
Ass
ess
me
nt 5. Collects and organizes data from assessments to provide feedback to students and
adjusts lessons/instruction as necessary
6. Incorporates assessments into instructional planning that demonstrate high
expectations for all students
Domain I Planning
22
Inst
ruct
ion
7. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content during instruction
8. Actively engages students in the learning process
9. Uses questioning and discussion techniques to promote higher order thinking skills
10. Brings multiple perspectives to the delivery of content
11. Communicates clearly and effectively
Domain IV Learning Environment
Lear
nin
g
Envi
ron
men
t
12. Manages classroom space and resources effectively for student learning
13. Creates and maintains a climate of safety, respect, and support for all students
14. Maximizes time available for instruction
15. Establishes and maintains a culture of learning to high expectations
16. Manages student behavior to provide productive learning opportunities for all students
Domain III Instruction
23
Pro
fess
ion
al
Re
spo
nsi
bili
tie
s 17. Engages in continuous professional development and applies new information learned in the classroom
18. Demonstrates professionalism and high ethical standards/acts in alignment with Mississippi Code of
Ethics
19. Establishes and maintains effective communication with families
20. Collaborates with colleagues and is an active member of a professional learning community in the school
Domain V Professional Responsibilities
Levels of Performance
24
DISTINGUISHED
EFFECTIVE
EMERGING
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance ratings Description
• Level 4 is the most effective level of teacher performance. Rating at this level indicates that the teacher’s performance is exemplary; consistently exceeding expectations.
• Level 3 is the expectation for all teachers. Rating at this level indicates the teacher’s performance consistently meets expectations. Teachers who receive this rating should receive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) for growth.
• Level 2 indicates either a beginning teacher or a teacher who needs focused
professional development. Rating at this level indicates the teacher is sometimes meeting expectations, but not doing so consistently. Teachers who receive this rating should receive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) of challenge
• Level 1 is the least effective level of teacher performance. Rating at this level
indicates the teacher’s performance is not acceptable. Teachers who receive this rating rarely meet expectations. Teachers who receive this rating should receive immediate and comprehensive professional development and support designed to address the identified area(s) for growth.
INDICATORS
What does this look like in the classroom?
25
7. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content during instruction
Teacher:
4 • Consistently uses multiple representations and explanations that capture key ideas in the discipline and promote each student’s achievement of content standards by consistently anticipating common misconceptions in learning • Consistently stimulates class reflection on prior content knowledge, links new concepts to familiar concepts, and makes clear and relevant connections to the students’ experiences through real-life applications and tasks • Consistently assists students in developing a deep understanding by engaging students in connecting the content to other appropriate subject areas and applying content to solving timely, real-world problems
3
2
1
Comments:
Domain III: Instruction
Indicators
26
Domain
Standard
M-STAR RUBRIC
What do the standards
“look like”
in the classroom?
27
Charlotte Danielson’s Scenarios
28
According to Charlotte Danielson, a good system of teacher evaluation must answer four questions:
1. How good is good enough? 2. Good enough at what? 3. How do we know? 4. Who should decide?
Charlotte Danielson’s Scenarios
Activity Work with table members to read the classroom observation scenarios.
Use the rubric to discuss and determine the following:
The domain that is described in the scenario
The level of performance for each teacher
Try for consensus on each one.
29
ARTIFACTS
What evidence can be offered to support the standards?
30
Artifact Review Process
Collecting and reviewing artifacts is an ongoing process that begins on Day 1 and ends with the summative post-observation conference.
All artifacts submitted should be linked to Domains and Standards and should support student learning and effective teacher practice.
31
Domains and Standards Assessed by Artifact Review
Domain I:
Planning
Standards
1. Plans lessons that demonstrate knowledge of content and pedagogy
2. Plans lessons that meet the diversity of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, learning levels, language proficiencies, interests, and special needs
3. Selects instructional goals that incorporate higher level learning for all students
4. Plans units of instruction that align with the Mississippi Curriculum Framework or, when applicable, the Common Core State Standards
32
Domains and Standards Assessed by Artifact Review
Domain II:
Assessment
Standards
5. Collects and organizes data from assessments to provide feedback to students and adjusts lessons and instruction as necessary
6. Incorporates assessments into instructional planning that demonstrates high expectations for students
33
Domains and Standards Assessed by Artifact Review
Domain V: Professional Responsibilities
Standards
17. Engages in continuous professional development and applies new information learned in the classroom
19. Establishes and maintains effective communication with families
20. Collaborates with colleagues and is an active member of a professional learning community in the school.
34
M-STAR Ratings are based on
EVIDENCE Here are some examples of evidence that will be considered:
Verbatim scripting of teacher and student comments
Descriptions of teacher and student actions
Numeric information about time, student participation, resources
Observations about the classroom environment
Artifacts
35
SCORING
How are the numbers crunched?
36
Scoring Process
Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard
Distinguished – 4 points
Effective – 3 points
Emerging – 2 points
Unsatisfactory – 1 point
Within each domain, the points will be averaged.
The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating.
37
Example: Creating A Domain Score
STANDARDS
Dis
tin
guis
hed
(4
po
ints
)
Effe
ctiv
e
(3 p
oin
ts)
Emer
gin
g
(2 p
oin
ts)
Un
sati
sfac
tory
(1
po
int)
Sco
re
Domain I: Planning
1. Plans lessons that demonstrate knowledge of content and pedagogy.
X 3
2. Plans lessons that meet the diversity of students’ backgrounds, cultures, skills, learning levels, language proficiencies, interests, and special needs.
X
3
3. Selects instructional goals that incorporate higher-level learning for all students.
X 2
4. Plans units of instruction that align with MS’s state content standards, or when applicable, the CCSS.
X
3
38
Domain Score (Average of standard scores under domain) 2.75
STANDARDS
Dis
tin
guis
hed
(4
po
ints
)
Effe
ctiv
e
(3 p
oin
ts)
Eme
rgin
g
(2 p
oin
ts)
Un
sati
sfac
tory
(1
po
int)
Sco
re
Domain II: Assessment
5. Collects and organizes data from assessments to provide feedback to students and adjusts lessons and instruction as necessary.
X
4
6. Incorporates assessments into instructional planning that demonstrates high expectations for all students.
X
4
39
Domain Score (Average of standards under domain) 4
Example: Creating A Domain Score
Example: Creating A Domain Score
STANDARDS
Dis
tin
guis
hed
(4
po
ints
)
Effe
ctiv
e
(3 p
oin
ts)
Emer
gin
g
(2 p
oin
ts)
Un
sati
sfac
tory
(1
po
int)
Sco
re
Domain III: Instruction
7. Demonstrates deep knowledge of content during instruction.
X
3
8. Actively engages students in the learning process. X 2
9. Uses questioning and discussion techniques to promote higher-order thinking skills.
X 2
10. Brings multiple perspectives to the delivery of content. X 3
40
Domain Score (Average of standard scores under domain) 2.5
Example: Creating A Domain Score
STANDARDS
Dis
tin
guis
hed
(4
po
ints
)
Effe
ctiv
e
(3 p
oin
ts)
Emer
gin
g
(2 p
oin
ts)
Un
sati
sfac
tory
(1
po
int)
Sco
re
Domain IV: Learning Environment
12. Manages classroom space and resources effectively for student learning.
X
4
13. Creates and maintains a climate of safety, respect, and support for all students.
X
4
14. Maximizes time available for instruction. X 3
15. Establishes and maintains a culture of learning to high expectations.
X
3
41
Domain Score (Average of standard scores under domain) 3.5
Example: Creating A Domain Score
STANDARDS
Dis
tin
guis
hed
(4
po
ints
)
Effe
ctiv
e
(3 p
oin
ts)
Emer
gin
g
(2 p
oin
ts)
Un
sati
sfac
tory
(1
po
int)
Sco
re
Domain V: Professional Responsibilities
17. Engages in continuous professional development and applies new information learned in the classroom.
X
3
18. Demonstrates professionalism and high ethical standards; acts in alignment with MS Code of Ethics.
X
3
19. Establishes and maintains effective communication with families.
X
2
20. Collaborates with colleagues and is an active member of a professional learning community in the school.
X
2
42
Domain Score (Average of standard scores under domain) 2.5
Example: Summative Observation Rating
Domain Domain Score
Weight Weighted Rating
I: Planning 2.75 x .20 .55
II: Assessment 4 x .20 .80
III: Instruction 2.5 x .20 .50
IV: Learning Environment 3.5 x .20 .70
V: Professional Responsibilities 2.5 x .20 .50
Summative Classroom Observation Rating 3.05
43
(2.75 + 4 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 2.5) 5