teacher effectiveness methodology

Teacher Effectiveness

ADE Educator Evaluation Summit

MethodologyText

Thursday, September 13, 2012

singleThe impact of an effectiveis the

student learning

teacher

most important factor in


60%Nearly

of the impact on student achievement is attributable to

principal teacherand

effectiveness* New Leaders for New Schools (2009)


YETvary minimally

principalteacherand

evaluation scores

failing to distinguish from great to good, good to fair, or fair to poor


how can districts If 98% of teachers have the same rating,

use evaluation data for

decision making?


dualMCESA tools serve

forprincipal teacherand

purposes(human resources • professional development)

evaluations


•  The State Board of Education shall...”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty per cent of the evaluation outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.”

New AZ laws require

for schools and districts

changesArizona Revised Statutes


must includeBy next year, evaluations

multiple measuresThursday, September 13, 2012

of educator33% - 50%

must be measured by student academic

progress

effectiveness


40% 5%50%School Growth

5%Team Growth

5%

Individual Growth40%

Observation50%


Designation Ineffective Partially Effective Effective 1 Effective 2 Highly Effective

REIL Growth Composite Rating

12345

1 2 3 4 5

Small Group Calibration Exercise


Example Learning Observation Rating Scale...

Score Description

1Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5 observations)



4Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on 5 observations)

5Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based on 5 observations)


Example Learning Observation Rating Scale...

Score Description




4Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on 5 observations)

5Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based on 5 observations)

50% of Score


Example Growth Scale50% of Score

Score Growth Designation Example: AIMs Value-Added Model Results

1 Well Below Expectations

On average, students’ AIMS scores are far below expected scores based on prior achievement, student & classroom characteristics (95% statistical con!dence that average growth is below the 20th percentile statewide).

2 Below Expectations On average, students’ AIMS scores are below expected scores based on prior achievement, student & classroom characteristics (95% statistical con!dence that average growth is below the statewide average).

3 Expected Growth (Average/Typical)

On average, students’ AIMS scores are not statistically different from expected scores based on prior achievement, student & classroom characteristics.

4 Above Expectations On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student & classroom characteristics (95% statistical con!dence that average growth is above the statewide average).

5 Well Above Expectations

On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student & classroom characteristics (95% statistical con!dence that average growth is above the 80th percentile statewide).


Designation Ineffective Partially Effective Effective 1 Effective 2 Highly Effective

REIL Growth Composite Rating

12345

1 2 3 4 5

Small Group Calibration Exercise


Merging Observation

student academic progress...

&Thursday, September 13, 2012

Determining tool

&scale for observation


Selecting measures

&calculations for student growth


Appropriatevaluesin

establishingeffectiveness


ObservationInstrument

Quantitative MeasuresDetermining Model for OverallEffectiveness


MCESA Tools


ObservationCycle

4 +16 + 2 = 22Thursday, September 13, 2012

Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI

Learning Community18%

Content23%

Formative Assessment14%

Instructional Strategies27%

Learner Engagement18%


Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI

Instructional Strategies

Learning Community

Formative Assessment

Content

Learner Engagement

= 4 Element Scores (18%)





222120191817161514131211109876543210

Num

ber o

f Ele

men

t Sco

res


Instructional Strategies

Learning Community

Formative Assessment

Content

Learner Engagement

Content Accessibility20%

Conceptual Understanding

20%Connections to

Content20%

Task Analysis40%

Content Element WeightsRubric Weights


evaluatorsPeer


ObservationInstrument

Quantitative MeasuresDetermining Model for OverallEffectiveness
