teacher evaluation panel

Teacher Evaluation PanelTuesday, February 12, 2013

Panelists Glenn McClain

Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7 (CO) Jan Rose Petro

Colorado Department of Education Patricia Hardy

Pennsylvania Department of Education Linda Rocks

Bossier Parish School System (LA)

Colorado’s State Model Evaluation System

Glenn McClain, Platte Valley School District, Weld Re-7Jan Rose Petro, Colorado Department of Education

Agenda• Colorado’s Goals and Priorities • Guiding Principles of State Model Evaluation

System • Framework for System to Evaluate Educators• Educator Rubrics • CDE Model Evaluation System Pilot• Timeline for Implementation of S.B. 10-191• Successes and Challenges

VisionAll students in Colorado will become educated and

productive citizens capable of succeeding in a globally competitive workforce.

MissionThe mission of CDE is to shape, support, and safeguard a

statewide education system that prepares students for success in a globally competitive world.

Together We Can

Successful students• Ensure every student is on track to graduate postsecondary and

workforce ready.• Increase achievement for all students and close achievement gaps.• Ensure students graduate ready for success in postsecondary

education and the workforce.• Increase national and international competitiveness for all students.

Great teachers and leaders• Increase and support the effectiveness of all educators.• Optimize the preparation, retention, and effectiveness

of new educators.• Eliminate the educator equity gap.

Outstanding schools and districts• Increase school and district performance.• Foster innovation and expand access to a rich array

of high quality school choices for students.

Best education system in the nation• Lead the nation in policy, innovation, and positive outcomes for

students.• Operate with excellence, efficiency, and effectiveness to become the

best SEA in the nation.• Attract and retain outstanding talent to CDE.

Students

Educators

Schools/ Districts

State

GOALS

PowerPoint Template

Driving Questions

What do we want students, educators, schools, and districts to know and be able to do?

How will we know if expectations are met?

How will we respond when help is needed and to support continued growth?

Colorado Academic Standards Assessments

• RTI• PBSI• Targeted interventions• IEPs

Educator quality standards

Educator evaluations

• Induction• Mentoring• Professional development plans• Remediation plans

Performance indicators

School and district performance frameworks

• Unified planning• Priority• Turnaround

Students

Educators

Schools/Districts

Expanding Student Learning

Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System

1. Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.

2. The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.

3. The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.

4. The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process.

5. Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.

Continuous ImprovementState model

system developed

Local evaluation systems

implemented

CDE collects data

State Council makes

recommendations

Rules reviewed and revised

2. Annual

Orientation

3.Self-

Assessment

4.Review of

Annual Goals and

Performance Plan

5.Mid-Year Review

6.Evaluator

Assessment

7.End-of-Year

Review

8.Final

Ratings

9.Goal-Setting

and Performance

Planning

1.Training

Educator Evaluation Cycle

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

Framework for System to Evaluate Principals

Definition of Principal Effectiveness

I. Strategy II. Instruction III. CultureV.

ManagementIV. Human Resources

VI. External Development

VII. Student Growth

50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Growth MeasuresWeighting: How Much Does Each Standard

Count Towards Overall Performance?

Number and Percentage Other Measures of Teachers Aligned with CDE

Guidelines

School Performance Other Measures Framework Aligned with CDE

Guidelines

Weighting:Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards

Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?

Performance Standards

Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective

Quality Standards

STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS

Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers

Definition of Teacher Effectiveness

I. Know Content

50% Professional Practice Standards 50% Student Growth MeasuresWeighting: How Much Does Each Standard

Count Towards Overall Performance?

Observations of Other Measures Teaching Aligned with

CDE Guidelines

State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines

Match of test to teaching assignments

Weighting:Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards

Result in a Determination of Individual Performance?

Performance StandardsIneffective Partially Effective Effective Highly Effective

Quality StandardsII. Establish Environment

III. Facilitate Learning

IV. Reflect on Practice

V. Demonstrate Leadership

VI. Student Growth

Appeals Process

Principal Quality Standards

I: Principals demonstrate

strategic leadership.

II: Principals demonstrate instructional leadership.

III: Principals demonstrate school culture and equity

leadership.

IV: Principals demonstrate human resource leadership.

V: Principals demonstrate managerial leadership.

VI: Principals demonstrate

external development leadership.

VII: Principals demonstrate

leadership around student academic

growth.

Teacher Quality StandardsI: Teachers

demonstrate mastery of and pedagogical

expertise in the content they teach.

The elementary teacher is an expert in literacy and mathematics and is knowledgeable in all other content that he or she teaches. The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathematics and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area(s).

II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive, and

respectful learning environment for a

diverse population of students.

III: Teachers plan and deliver effective

instruction and create an environment that

facilitates learning for their students.

IV: Teachers reflect on their practice.

V:Teachers demonstrate leadership.

VI: Teachers take responsibility for

student academic growth.

Application of Quality Standards • Each quality standard includes “elements” — which provide a more

detailed description of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard.

• All districts must base their evaluations on the full set of quality standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements.

• Some districts are using their own locally developed standards after completing a crosswalk of their standards to the state’s quality standards and elements. These districts must provide assurances that they are meeting all additional requirements of SB 10-191.

Principal Evaluations50% Student Academic Growth

50% Professional Practice

Quality Standards I-VI:I. Strategic leadershipII. Instructional leadershipIII. School culture/equity leadershipIV. HR leadershipV. Managerial leadershipVI. External development leadership

Evaluated using: (1) teacher input; (2) teacher evaluation ratings; and (3) teacher improvement.

Quality Standard VII:VII. Leadership around student academic growth

Evaluated using: (1) SPF data; and (2) at least one other measure of student academic growth.

Teacher Evaluations50% Professional Practice

50% Student Academic Growth

Quality Standards I-V:I. Mastery of contentII. Establish learning environmentIII. Facilitate learningIV. Reflect on practiceV. Demonstrate leadership

Evaluated using: (1) observations; and (2) at least one of the following: student perception measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include additional measures.

Quality Standard VI:VI. Responsibility for student academic growth

Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-attributed growth, (2) a measure of collectively-attributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data.

Rubric Alignment

Quality Standard

Elements Aligned to Standard

Professional Practices

Quality Standard II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of students.

Not Evident Partially Proficient Proficient(Meets State Standard) Accomplished Exemplary

Element c: Teachers engage students as individuals with unique interests and strengths.

The teacher: Has low-level expectations for

some students. Uses data for instructional

decision making on an infrequent basis.

The teacher: Monitors students for

level of participation. Encourages students to

share their interests. Challenges students to

expand and enhance their learning.

. . . andThe teacher: Asks difficult questions

of all students. Scaffolds questions. Gives wait time

equitably. Flexibly Groups

students. Assumes that all

students will meet or exceed expectations.

Modifies instruction to assure that all students: Understand what is

expected of them. Are challenged to meet

or exceed expectations. Participate in

classroom activities with a high level of frequency and quality.

Take responsibility for their work.

Have the opportunity to build on their interests and strengths.

. . . andStudents: Actively participate in

all classroom activities. Monitor their own

performance for frequency of participation.

Seek opportunities to respond to difficult questions.

. . . andStudents: Select challenging

content and activities when given the choice in order to stretch their skills and abilities.

Encourage fellow students to participate and challenge themselves.

Quality Standard

Element that

aligns with

standard

Rating levels


Components of the Educator Rubrics

Standard I: Principals Demonstrate Strategic Leadership

Not Evident Partially Proficient Proficient Accomplished Exemplarya. School Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals: Principals develop the vision, mission, values, beliefs and goals of the school, collaboratively determining the processes used

to establish these attributes, and facilitating their integration into the life of the school community.

Vision, mission, values, beliefs and goals of school are: Not evident or familiar

to staff and other stakeholders.

Developed by school administrators working in relative isolation.

Not integrated into the life of the school community.

Vision, mission, values, beliefs and strategic goals of school are: Developed through a

collaborative process with staff and other stakeholder groups.

Publicly available at the school.

Part of routine school communications with staff and other stakeholders.

Routinely updated.

. . . andEstablishes strategic goals for students and staff that are: Focused on student

achievement. Based on the analysis of

multiple sources of information.

Aligned with district priorities.

Measurable. Rigorous. Concrete.

. . . and Staff incorporate

identified strategies in their instructional plans to assure that students achieve expected outcomes.

. . . and Staff and other

stakeholders take leadership roles in updating the school’s vision, mission, and strategic goals.

Staff members assume responsibility for implementing the school’s vision, mission, and strategic goals.

Not Evident describes practices of a principal who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them.

The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what principals do on a day-to-day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels.

The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the outcomes of the principal’s practices, including expectations for staff, students, parents and community members, as a result of practices exhibited under rating levels 2 and 3.

Principal and Teacher Performance Evaluation Ratings

After CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix, the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.

Highly Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Ineffective

PerformanceRating Levels

Elements of the Standard


Teacher Quality Standards

Evaluator Comments

Summary of Ratings for the Standard

Evidence Provided by Artifacts

Teacher’s Response to Evaluation

Examples of Artifacts

= Observable in

Classroom

Pilot PeriodIs used to develop, identify and/or test the following:• Principal and teacher rubrics• Measures of student academic growth• Method to collect teacher input for principal evaluations• Method to collect student and family perception data • Method to aggregate measures and assign final

evaluation ratings• CDE monitoring methods

Year One 2011-12 Development

and Beta Testing

• CDE ACTIVITIES• Develop State Model

Systems for teachers and principals

• Beta-testing of rubrics and tools

• Develop technical guidelines on Professional Practices and Student Growth

• Provide differentiated support for districts

• Populate and launch online Resource Bank

• Develop state data collection and monitoring system

• Develop tools for district implementation of system

Year Two 2012-13 Pilot and Rollout

• CDE ACTIVITIES• Usability study of

rubrics• Support pilot

districts through resources, training, tools, etc.

• Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned

• Analyze pilot district data and make adjustments as needed

• Train ALL non-pilot districts that are using the state model

• Make Recommendations on other licensed personnel (OLP) to State Board of Education (SBE)

Year Three 2013-14 Pilot and

Rollout

• CDE ACTIVITIES• Statewide

assistance on rollout of evaluation systems

• Develop evaluation system for other licensed personnel

• Support all districts through resources, trainings, tools, etc.

• Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned

• Analyze state data and make adjustments to the system as needed

• Validate teacher and principal rubrics

• Develop criteria for evaluation training courses for approval by CDE

Year Four 2014-15 Full Statewide Implementation

• CDE ACTIVITIES• Finalize statewide

implementation of teacher/principal systems

• Pilot OLP rubrics• Continue support to

districts via resources and training

• Ensure there are evaluator training courses throughout the state

• Analyze data and make adjustments as needed

• Make recommendations to SBE this year and all following years for Continuous Improvement

Timeline of Implementation

SEA Successes and ChallengesSuccesses• Focus on intent (rather

than compliance)• Conversations about

teaching and learning• Flexibility• Collaboration with

associations • Coordination with BOCES

to train regions• 27 Colorado pilot districts

Challenges• Variance in capacity at

local level• Change management

(time burden high)• Inter-rater agreement

across state system users• Measuring student

learning• Attributing student

learning

LEA Successes and ChallengesSuccesses• Train the Trainer model

– Administrative team– Faculty

• Previous improvement work is complementary

Challenges• Time• Availability of resources

in time to use with staff• Comprehensiveness and

length of new evaluation• System and process

unknowns

Contact Information

• Katy [email protected]

• Toby [email protected]

• Michael [email protected]

• Britt [email protected]

• Jean Williams [email protected]

• Dawn Paré[email protected]

• Courtney [email protected]

• Amy Skinner [email protected]

• Katie [email protected]

For more information, please visit: www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness

mailto:[email protected]









http://www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness/

Tom Corbett, Governor ▪ Ronald Tomalis, Secretary of Education www.education.state.pa.us

Measuring Educator Effectiveness


February 12, 2013 36



Project Goal

• To develop educator effectiveness models that will reform the way we evaluate school professionals as well as the critical components of training and professional growth.

The term “educator” includes teachers, education specialists, and principals.

37



38

How Did We Get Here?

• June 30, 2012, Act 82, Section 1123 of the PublicSchool Code was passed.

• Permitted use of student achievement data to be usedas part of the teacher evaluation system.

• Established the components and weighting to be included in the new rating tool.



School Building Data, 15%

Teacher Specific Data, 15%

Elective Data, 20%

Observation/ Evidence,

50%

Observation/EvidenceEffective 2013-2014 SYDanielson Framework Do-mainsPlanning and PreparationClassroom EnvironmentInstructionProfessional Responsibilities

School Building DataEffective 2013-2014 SYIndicators of Academic AchievementIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, All StudentsIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, SubgroupsAcademic Growth PVAASOther Academic IndicatorsCredit for Advanced Achievement

Teacher Specific DataEffective 2016-2017 SYPVAAS / Growth 3 Year Rolling Average2013-2014 SY2014-2015 SY2015-2016 SYOther data as provided in Act 82

Elective Data/SLOsOptional 2013-2014 SYEffective 2014-2015 SYDistrict Designed Measures and Examina-tionsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local Re-quirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Re-quirements

Teacher Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

39



Building Level Data• PA has developed a School Performance Profile for

each school in PA LEAs.• Based upon multiple data sources, all of which

have been required by PDE in the past – no new reports.

• Includes indicators of Academic Achievement, Closing the Achievement Gap, Academic Growth, and other academic indicators.

• Each school receives a score based on these factors and their weighting.

40



Teacher Specific Data

• PVAAS data• 3-year rolling average to reduce “noise”

41



Building Level Data, 15%

Observation/ Evidence,

50%

Observation/EvidenceEffective 2013-2014Danielson Framework Do-mainsPlanning and PreparationClassroom EnvironmentInstructionProfessional Responsibilities

Building Level DataEffective 2013-2014 SYIndicators of Academic AchievementIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, All StudentsIndicators of Closing the Achievement Gap, Sub-groupsAcademic Growth PVAASOther Academic IndicatorsCredit for Advanced Achievement

Elective Data/SLOsPiloting 2013-2014 SYEffective 2014-2015 SYDistrict Designed Measures and Examina-tionsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local Re-quirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Re-quirements

Elective Data, 35%

42



43

Non-Teaching Professional Employees:

Who Are They?• Dental Hygienist• Elementary/Secondary School Counselors• Home and School Visitors• Instructional Technology Specialist• School Nurse• School Psychologist



Observa-tion/ Evi-

dence 80%

Student Perfor-mance 20%

Observation/EvidenceDanielson Framework Domains1. Planning and Preparation2. Educational Environment3. Delivery of Service 4. Professional Development

Student Performance of All Students in the School Building in which the Nonteaching Professional Employee is Employed District Designed Measures and ExaminationsNationally Recognized Standardized TestsIndustry Certification ExaminationsStudent Projects Pursuant to Local RequirementsStudent Portfolios Pursuant to Local Requirements

Non Teaching Professional Employee Effectiveness System in Act 82 of 2012

Effective 2014-2015 SY

44



Challenges

• Collecting accurate data from LEAs

• Building an accurate Student/Teacher/Course linkage system.

45



www.education.state.pa.us

Select Educator Effectiveness Quick Link

Educator Effectiveness – The

Other HalfAn LEA Data Manager

Perspective

NCES Forum, February 2013Linda Rocks, Bossier Parish Schools

Remember When… Compliance Filling in cells in grant templates FOIA requests

Data Use

OMG

Educator Evaluation

www.louisianabelieves.com/resources/library/teaching

Excerpt from LDOE press release Jan 14, 2013 on proposed enhancements to Compass

Inaugural YearInception Pilot


Inaugural Year

CVR & VAM

Inaugural Year

State Program/Policy

Office

State Program/Policy

OfficeState Data

Division

Data Pipeline…Then & Now

LEA Data Managers

LEA Administration

LEA Administration

What they did well Similar design for both CVR & HCIS Single security login for both CVR & HCIS Created state network support teams by

region Created local admin roles for both CVR &

HCIS

Where it could improve Involvement of SEA/LEA data managers Network support team member with data

background Files…without Educator ID

Data Use

OMGIKR

teacher evaluation panel

Documents

best education system

statewide education

visionall students

postsecondary education

districtsincrease school

workforce ready

competitive workforce

effectiveness of new