CORE Professional Capital Convening August 5-7, 2013 Courtyard Marriott, Natomas Sacramento Rick...

CORE Professional Capital Convening

August 5-7, 2013Courtyard Marriott, Natomas

Sacramento

Rick Miller, CORE Executive DirectorMichelle Steagall, CORE Chief Academic OfficerJohn Glaser, Facilitator Ginger Adams Simon, Facilitator

Professional Capital Convening

Monday, August 5th, 4-8 p.m.• Welcome• Introductions• Goals and Agenda • Norms, Ground rules, Perspectives • Waiver Overview• Review of Glossary• Opening Activity • Synthesis of Professional Standards

GoalsBy completion of the convening, participants will: 1. Agree upon a common set of professional standards to serve as an

appropriate foundation for LEA’s individual existing or evolving educator evaluation systems.

2. Draft a common set of effectiveness indicators for teacher evaluation based on the common standards, including examples with sample measures and activities for each indicator.

3. Gather feedback on a draft rubric for measuring CORE LEA’s Educator Evaluation Systems over time. Develop a revised draft to present to and garner input from LEA stakeholders.

4. Determine next steps for continuing the work as a CORE Professional Capital collaborative, including sharing the work with stakeholder groups and developing the key indicators for administrators.

Getting StartedTasks for the Evening

1. Identification of the interests motivating participants related to educator evaluation systems

2. Begin synthesis of professional standards for both teachers and administrators upon which the indicators will be based.

Draft Norms1. Strive to interact as a community of learners, focusing on

problems, not people. Search for common ground.

2. Commitment to listen—make room for all voices.

3. Check assumptions—seeking first to understand.

4. Take care of personal needs when necessary.

5. Keep cell phones on silent mode, and take phone calls out of the room.

6. Self-manage in small groups.

7. Adhere to agreed-upon timelines. Request additional time if needed.

8. Agreements that leave the convening will be considered drafts on which stakeholder feedback is needed.

9. Others?.....

CORE ESEA Flexibility Waiver

Request: The School Quality Improvement

System

Who is CORE?CORE districts represent 20% of California Students

CORE’s Waiver GoalWith this waiver, CORE does not seek to escape FROM accountability. Instead, CORE is asking for a waiver INTO a new system with a higher level of shared responsibility and accountability but propelled by the right drivers to achieve the system’s ultimate purpose: 1. All students prepared for college and careers2. Elimination of disparity and

disproportionality on multiple measures of student engagement and success.

Current ESEA (NCLB) law demands 100% proficiency by 2014 and loss of funding and one-size-fits-all interventions for

schools that do not meet the target

Source: USED; CDE, NBC News

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB), formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), mandates that all students are academically proficient by 2014

• Schools, LEAs, and subgroups must meet these goals to make AYP targets and exit Program Improvement

• NCLB neglects subjects like social studies, the arts, health and physical education

• The penalty for missing AYP is loss of federal funding for schools serving low-income children

• ESEA expired in 2007, and Congress hasn't acted to rewrite or refresh it

• In 2011, the US Education Department told states that they could apply for waivers pending a new law because the current law was "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work"

California LEAs and schools must meet Participation Rate, ELA, Math, API, and

Graduation Rate targets for all students and subgroups under NCLB to be considered making

AYP

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Target

for High School ELA, 2002-2014

0

20

40

60

80

100% ELA

ESEA Authorizatio

n Expired

Current School Year

Schools are far from meeting proficiency targets; without the waiver, shortly all schools would fall into Program

Improvement Corrective Action

Source: USED; CDE

0

100

200

300

400

5 8

50

142

273

310

209

77

2412

Participating CORE Waiver LEA Title I Schools by Average ELA and Math

Proficiency LevelCurrent

Proficiency Expectation

• Schools, LEAs, and the state must meet all AYP criteria to meet ESEA

• Shortly, all schools and LEAs will miss these ratcheted up targets

− Title I Schools and LEAs are identified for Program Improvement (PI) if they do not meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years

• If a school or an LEA is designated PI, it must provide certain types of required services and/or interventions during each year it is identified as PI

• In Year 3 of PI, schools and LEAs are subject to onerous sanctions which include:

− Replacing school staff

− Extending school year or day

− Restructuring school organization

− Implementing new curriculum

USED offers a waiver for ESEA requirements; California is one of five states that does not have an approved

ESEA Flexibility Waiver or one under review

States approved for ESEA flexibility (n=37, DC)States with ESEA flexibility requests under review (n=8, PR, BIE)

Puerto Rico

Bureau of Indian Education

District of Columbia

Source: USED

California represents more than 90% of non-waived students nationwide. The state submitted a letter

requesting flexibility which was deemed insufficient by USED

Source: USED; NCES; Ed Week

• California submitted letter (not a waiver application) as an ESEA flexibility request on June 15, 2012

• However, unlike other states, California shied away from two central components of the application:

• Developing a complete new accountability system

• Implementing a teacher evaluation system that takes student outcomes into account

• USED denied California’s request, and the state has not submitted another version

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Total K-12Enrollment

Nebraska

California

6.9M

California

Rest of California

COREWaiverDistricts

6.3M

North DakotaVermontMontana

States That Do Not Have a Waiver Under Review

Current CORE Waiver districts would cover

~1.2M students

The large achievement gaps in CA’s student subgroups are a call to action: Change is needed to address this disproportionality, as the status quo is

not working

Source: EdSource website

• “At more than 6 million students, California’s public school population is enormous. It is also enormously diverse. In its schools, the state has a majority of minorities, with Hispanics/Latinos making up the largest student group”

• “More than one in five children in California live in poverty, and nearly half of all K–12 students participate in the federal free and reduced-price meal programs offered in schools to students from low-income families”

• “In addition, one quarter of California’s K–12 students are English learners”

—EdSource, “The Achievement Gap in California”

• “On the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and California’s own standards-based tests (CSTs), poor students, African Americans and Latinos, and English learners are over-represented among students scoring at the lowest levels and under-represented among the highest scoring”

• “Other measures of student achievement—including dropout and graduation rates, completion of the A-G courses required for eligibility to the state’s four-year universities, and college admissions—reveal similar achievement patterns between these groups of students and their peers. These results are important because they predict later success, including students’ ability as adults to secure jobs that pay a living wage”

• “Because African Americans and Latinos in California represent disproportionate numbers of children living in poverty, they are also more likely to begin school at a disadvantage”

—EdSource, “The Achievement Gap in California”

California’s population of historically

underperforming subgroups is large

California’s subgroups

underperform from starting KG to

entering college

An ESEA waiver can help Participating LEAs address the problem of disproportionality among California’s student population by highlighting schools with large achievement gaps and providing targeted

interventions

PRINCIPLE 1: COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL STUDENTS1A. Adopt College- & Career-Ready Expectations for All Students1B. Transition to College- & Career-Ready Standards1C. Develop & Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-quality Assessments that Measure Student Growth

PRINCIPLE 2: DIFFERENTIATED RECOGNITION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SUPPORT2A. Develop and implement a state-based system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 2B. Set ambitious but achievable annual measurable objectives 2C.-E. Identify Reward Schools, Priority Schools, and Focus Schools2F. Provide incentives and supports for other Title I schools2G. Build LEA and school capacity to improve student learning

PRINCIPLE 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP3A. Develop and adopt guidelines for local teacher and principal evaluation support systems3B. Ensure LEAs implement teach and principal evaluation and support systems

Federal ESEA Waiver requirements aim to drive change through 3 key principles: academic standards,

differentiated accountability, and effective leadership

The CORE Waiver addresses these requirements through four key commitments

Source: EdSource Website

College and Career Ready Standards

New CORE Accountability Model For Identifying School Supports and

Interventions

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Incorporating

Growth in Student Achievement

Peer-based Monitoring, Review, and Support

• Participating LEAs commit to Common Core Standards (by 2013-14) and SBAC assessments (by 2014-15)

• LEAs will participate in the School Quality Improvement System, which includes a CORE-designed holistic accountability model, AMOs, and school designations (e.g., Reward, Focus, and Priority schools)

• LEAs will track, submit, and release school-level academic, social-emotional, and culture and climate information

Commitment from Participating CORE Waiver LEAs

• LEAs commit to implementing by 2015-16 a teacher and principal evaluation system that differentiates performances into four tiers and includes, as a significant factor, student growth

Waiver Component

• LEAs designated as Priority or Focus (optional initially, required after 2 years) schools or other schools needing improvement will participate in pairing process with a Reward or exemplar school

• Schools may participate in appropriate Communities of Practice, which are mandatory for schools which do not meet AMOs and Focus Schools

Central to the CORE Waiver is a holistic school performance system with tailored support for schools

and LEAs called the School Quality Improvement System

Goals

Usage

The CORE School Quality Improvement System seeks to:

• Establish a holistic school performance system that values multiple measures of student success across academic, social-emotional, and culture-climate domains

• Provide schools, teachers, and administrators clear, in-depth feedback on areas of strength and those in need of improvement to improve outcomes for students

• Create a collective ownership structure within schools, districts, and the CORE network in which teacher, staff, and administrator collaboration and shared responsibility for student outcomes are primary drivers of accountability

• Increase and restore student, parent, and community confidence in all CORE network schools

CORE seeks to apply these goals to the differentiated accountability, recognition and support framework required through the ESEA waiver:

• A school-level improvement index (School Quality Improvement Index) that clearly evaluates schools on student achievement, subgroup performance, and graduation rates;

• Annual Measurable Objectives (School Quality Improvement Goals) that are used to design targeted interventions and rewards; and

• A school designation system that identifies and outlines rewards for high performing or high-progress “reward” schools, and interventions for severely underperforming “priority” schools or “focus” schools with persistent achievement gaps

• LEAs will use this holistic, detailed information to inform school self assessments, professional learning community topics, and school partner pairings to drive tailored interventions and school support

Collaborative system for mutual accountability and support• School partnership based

upon Reward, Focus, and Priority school designations, as well as school progress against School Quality Improvement Goal

• Bi-annual LEA Peer Review to support and monitor Waiver implementation

School Quality Improvement System

School Pairing and LEA Peer Review

Dual Data SystemSchool Quality

Improvement Goal

School Quality Improvement Index

Continuous Improvement Data

Collection

Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

• “CORE Waiver AMO” based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement IndexKey School-Level

Measurement for Accountability Purposes• Includes school-level

Academic, Social-Emotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators

• Consistent across LEAs

• Aggregated by 3rd Party

Data Sharing Function for Support of Collaboration and Sharing• Includes (1) indicators

piloted for use in the index; (2) implementation metrics; (3) other classroom-, school-, and LEA-level formative data

• Collected by CORE

Moral imperative of college and career readiness for all students with a significant focus on the elimination of disproportionality

The School Quality Improvement System is a holistic approach to school improvement with the goal of college

and career readiness for all students

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, LEAs must complete the

Principle 1 Must Dos

1. Develop district CCSS instructional plans which include necessary pedagogical shifts for engaging all students to master all standards (with emphasis on meeting the needs of EL, SwD, and low achieving students).

2. Identify ELD benchmarked learning targets within the CCSS and new CA ELD standards.

3. Develop district professional development plan for all teachers aligned to CCSS and SBAC.

4. Engage all teacher leaders in CCSS and SBAC based professional development for preparation of CCSS implementation.

5. Full district transition to CCSS in 2013-146. Agree to fully transition to SBAC assessments in 2014-15.

Principle 1: Transition to College and Career Ready Standards

LEAs have begun transitioning to CCSS and SBAC implementation. In order to maintain local flexibility, each district is responsible for designing their own transition

plans with support from CORE as needed

Complete In Progress Next Steps

Over the course of Summer 2013, districts have prepared for full implementation of the CCSS in the 2013-2014 school year

through continued stakeholder engagement and district-led PD

CORE CCSS Transition Timeline

Principle 2: State Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability and Support

Elimination of Disparity and Disproportionality

CORE’s theory of change is based on eliminating disparity and disproportionality across academic,

social/emotional, and culture/climate domains




Improvement Goal

School Quality Improvement

Index

Continuous Improvement

Data Collection

Key School-Level Measurement for Accountability Purposes• Includes school-level

Academic, Social-Emotional, and Culture and Climate Indicators

• Consistent across LEAs

• Aggregated by 3rd Party


The School Quality Improvement Index is a key component of the Dual Data System, and the driver of differentiated

recognition, accountability and support

School Quality Improvement Index scores flow to AMO status (School Quality Improvement Goal) and school

designations

Accountability Model

Accountability ModelSchool Quality Improvement Index

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)

School Quality Improvement Goals

School Designations

(Reward, Focus,

Priority)

Academic Social-EmotionalCulture and

Climate


School scores on the accountability report will be used to determine whether a school met its School Quality Improvement Goal and will provide schools information on subgroup performance

School Quality Improvement Goals are designed to improve schools’ overall accountability score and improve student performance across numerous dimensions

School designations are informed by the accountability model scores, and for reward schools, whether the School Quality Improvement Goal was met

The School Quality Improvement Index provides a more holistic view of school and student performance than under

NCLB

Performance measured against ELA, Math, API, and graduation rate targets

Academic performance broadened to include other subjects (e.g., science, history, writing) and other metrics (e.g., growth, 5th and 6th year graduation rates)

Non-Cognitive skills will be included, in addition to measuring absentee and suspension/expulsion rates

Academic Social-Emotional Culture and Climate

Student, staff, and parent surveys included, in addition to Special Ed identification and ELL redesignation rates

NCLB

CORE Waiver

Not included Not included

Research has demonstrated the importance of these factors not only for academic

achievement but also life success (e.g., employment, wages, avoidance of risky

behavior)

In order to reach CORE Districts’ overarching goal of eliminating disparity and disproportionality, subgroup N-

size has been lowered to 20 - thereby increasing accountability for a significant number of additional

students

Additional Students Counted Under N≥20 Recommendation,

CORE Waiver LEAsBased on 2012 student numbers

State Original N-Size New N-Size

Arkansas 40 25

Connecticut 40 25

Delaware 40 30

Idaho 34 25

Mississippi 40 30

Nevada 25 10

North Carolina 40 30

Rhode Island 45 20

South Carolina 40 30

South Dakota 25 10

Virginia 50 30

Washington 30 20

Wisconsin 40 20

CORE Waiver LEAs 100 20

State ESEA Waivers With Lowered N-Sizes

Subgroup

Students Counted Under

Current N-Size (N≥100

or 15% of students)

Students Counted Under

Recommended N-Size (N≥20)

Additional Students Counted

% Increase

in Students

African American

36.2k 63.1k 26.9k 74%

American Indian - - - -Asian 27.5k 45.6k 18k 66%English Learner 258.8k 285.3k 26.5k 10%Filipino 3k 8.8k 5.8k 196%Hispanic or Latino

402.3k 422.9k 20.6k 5%

Pacific Islander - 1.1k 1.1k InfiniteSocioeconomically Disadvantaged

498.1k 513.7k 15.6k 3%

Students With Disabilities

19.5k 70.5k 51k 262%

2 or More Races - 1.9k 1.9k InfiniteWhite 54.7k 70k 15.4k 28%

~185K Additional Students

2015-16 and Beyond

Proposed Accountability Model – Includes All Grades


100%

Social-Emotional

Factors20%

Culture and Climate Factors

(Student20%

Absentee Rate, Suspension/Expulsio

n Rate, Non-Cognitive Skills

(TBD)

Student/Staff/Parent Surveys, Special Ed Identification, ELL

Re-designation Rate (TBD)

Academic Domain60%

Performance20%

Growth20%

CompletionGrad Rate (HS)HS Retention

(MS)20%

A school will be successful on the School Quality Improvement Index only if historically underperforming

subgroup performance improves

All Students10%

Subgroups10%

All Students10%

Subgroups10%

All Students10%

Subgroups10%

All Students10%

Subgroups10%

All Students10%

Subgroups10%

The School Quality Improvement Index works in tandem with the formative performance factors of the dual data

system to identify school-specific areas in need of reward or intervention

The School Quality Improvement System provides for targeted interventions as opposed to one-size-fits-all

requirements of NCLB Program Improvement

• Interventions are the same for each school and LEA in a given year of Program Improvement

• System is one of top-down compliance and does not include cross-school/LEA collaborations

• LEAs partner with peers to jointly work through implementation of initiatives (e.g., CCSS, teacher and principal evaluation system)

• Lower-performing schools partner with exemplar school based upon area of focus

California CORE Waiver

Nature of Interventions

Support Available

• Required interventions are targeted based upon school needs (e.g., achievement gap, low grad rate)

• Schools and LEAs must progress though PI interventions without the flexibility to assess whether they are working well for their context

• LEA and school partners hold each other accountable, partner to solve targeted problems together, and will notify CORE if peer falls out of good standing

Evaluation




Improvement Goal


Continuous Improvement Data

Collection


The School Quality Improvement Goal provides school with an ambitious but achievable goal based off its performance

on the School Quality Improvement Index

Annual School Goals to Measure Progress

• “CORE Waiver AMO” based upon performance and growth on the School Quality Improvement Index

• All schools will have as School Quality Improvement Goals either:

− Reaching a score of 90% on its School Quality Improvement Index; or

− Improve the School Quality Improvement Index by increasing 2 percentage points in 2 years, and 4 percentage points in 4 years

Transition

Accountability Score will be based on

Academic DomainBegin collecting

social-emotional and culture/climate in

order to set a baseline for future

measurement2013-14


Partial ImplementationIntroduce Socio-

Emotional & Cultural Factors

Growth in academic performance excluded

during 1st year of SBAC/PARCC

implementation2014-15

Full Implementation

School Quality Improvement Index fully implemented

with all factors fully measured and

considered

2015-16 & Beyond

Implementation Timeline

Districts will transition gradually to the School Quality Improvement Index and Goal system in order to allow for

thoughtful implementation and account for new standards under CCSS and SBAC

The school designation system is designed to create targeted interventions and support, as well as

accountability for low performing schools through a school partnership program

The School Quality Improvement System Pyramid of Interventions

Provides interventions and supports for schools of all performance levels

Principle 3: SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION

AND LEADERSHIP

Principle 3 USED

Requirements

1. Ensure continual improvement of instruction2. Differentiate the performance of teachers and

principals using at least three performance levels

3. Use multiple valid measures to determine performance levels including, as a significant factor student growth for all students and other professional practices

4. Evaluate teachers on a regular basis5. Provide clear, timely and useful feedback to

guide professional development6. Use evaluations to inform personnel decisions

1. Ensure that District teacher/principal evaluation system is aligned to the CORE Districts agreed-upon common standards. If necessary for alignment, modify or design and adopt a teacher/principal/superintendent evaluation system in spring of 2013, if current one does not align to the required elements. Districts have the flexibility to design evaluation systems and instruments that best meet local context needs given District existing systems, processes, and relationship with labor unions.

a. Includes student learning as a significant component (this may need to be bargained)b. Is aligned to the pedagogical shifts required by CCSSc. Ensure data collection with sufficient frequency to provide a basis for evaluation;d. Employ ratings that meaningfully differentiate among teaching effectiveness using at

least four categories;2. If a new or redesigned system is needed, pilot must occur by 14-15 school year3. Share aggregate evaluation system data, reports and evidence regarding progress in

increasing student outcomes and closing the achievement gap by:a. Track and report the aggregate distribution of teachers and principals by

performance level data no later than the 2014–2015 school year.

Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership

In order to participate in the School Quality Improvement System, districts must complete the

Principle 3 Must Dos

Adopted from Greatness by Design,State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s

Taskforce on Educator Excellence, September 2012

The School Quality Improvement System-wide common educator evaluation indicators are founded in the theory of

a standards-based framework put forth in Greatness By Design

Student Learning as a Significant Component of Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support

SystemsThe ‘trigger” system includes an evaluation based on professional practice and impact on student learning.

DesignDesign new or modify educator evaluation systems aligned to

local district contexts2013-14


Beginning in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into a Peer Cycle of Review to ensure progress towards educator evaluation systems that meet School Quality Improvement System requirements and to promote continued collaboration and best practice sharing

between LEAs


Participating districts have flexibility to design an educator evaluation systems in partnership with key

stakeholders within the parameters of full implementation in 2015-2016

Additional Considerations

Eight CORE LEAs have signed on to the CORE Waiver

Long Beach

SangerFresno

Santa Ana

San Francisco

Oakland

Sacramento

Los Angeles

CORE ESEA Waiver Participants

Glossary Review• Educator Evaluation System

• Design Principles

• CORE Growth Model

• Trigger System

• Professional Standards

• Performance Indicators

Opening ActivityExploration of interests related to the work

1. Self-manage in small, mixed groups.

2. First write silently and individually for 2 minutes on the following topic: What fundamental interests are motivating your participation in the development of effective evaluation systems throughout our collaborative?

3. Collect individual interests in the small group, each person contributing one at a time. Participants avoid duplication, but place a check mark next to any items to reflect the number of additional group members who wrote down that interest.

Opening Activity Continued

4. Carousel for small groups to see each other’s lists. (5 minutes).

5. Whole group discussion of the contents of the lists. Similarities, differences, surprises. (approx. 10 minutes)

6. Leave the completed lists hanging on a wall in the room.

Activity 21. Self-managing the work in your small, mixed groups, review

professional standards and frameworks provided for both teachers and administrators. Time available TBA.

2. Determine commonalities among sets of standards across categories or themes and add missing themes (if any) not addressed.

3. Create two synthesized lists of standards – one for teachers and one for administrators – honing down frameworks into specific standards if necessary.

Activity 2 (Continued)

• Combine with another group.• Review the work generated by each group, and

develop a synthesized lists of standards. Track any disagreements on a separate list.

• Time allotment: TBA

What is the difference between a standard and a

framework?

• In many cases, evaluation systems are designed beginning with a framework, then by establishing standards or more specific practices as desired within that framework (e.g. Danielson, Marzano, NCEA).

• Standards are more specific skills, practices and knowledge required by organizations to reflect quality performance or attainment (e.g. CSTP, InTASC, CPSEL).

Professional Standards

California Professional Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSEL)

Standard 1: Facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.

Standard 2: Advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard 3: Ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Professional Standards, continued…

CPSEL

Standard 4: Collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Standard 5: Modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity.

Standard 6: Understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

Professional Standards

California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)

• Standard 1: Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning

• Standard 2: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning

• Standard 3: Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter for Student Learning

• Standard 4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students

• Standard 5: Assessing Students for Learning

• Standard 6: Developing as a Professional Educator

Professional FrameworksNCEA

Professional FrameworksCharlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

2013

Professional Standards and Frameworks, continued…

Other standards and frameworks to be considered include:

• The Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards published by CCSSP in 2011.

• Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model- proprietary model which provides a framework with 4 domains

Wrap upTomorrow we will:

1. Finalize our list of common standards

2. Begin the process of creating indicators to measure progress towards and/or attainment of those standards.

GoalsTuesday, August 6, 2013

8:30 a.m.- 4:30 p.m.Goals for the Day

1. Complete synthesis of professional standards for both teachers and administrators

2. Begin process of establishing teacher performance indicators

3. Provide information and an opportunity for initial discussions related to student achievement as a factor in effectiveness ratings

The Role of Student Achievement in

Effectiveness Ratings

Teacher and Administrator Evaluation Framework

Option 1Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support

Systems

Combination of measures of professional practice and student growth, defines student growth as at least 20% of the overall rating of teacher and principal performance. • at least 20% of the evaluation system must be represented

by the State Assessment. o CST growth (2013-14 and 2014-15) and SBAC growth results starting in 2015-16.

• Other district-wide measure of achievement that are common across grades or subject matter (as determined locally by the LEA) can reach beyond the 20%.

• How the growth measures are factored into the evaluation system will be established individually by each LEA.

• But, the totality of student growth measures will be at least 20% derived by state assessments.

Option 2Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support

Systems

Student growth integrated through a “trigger” system

Teacher & Principal Evaluation and Support SystemsWaiver language will be updated to reflect districts’

options for integrating student growth into evaluation systems

• Similar to the Massachusetts model, misalignment between teacher/ administrator professional practice and student performance will initiate dialogue between teachers and administrators to identify why a discrepancy between scores exists, followed by district action in the interest of professional development of the teacher which could include, among others, an addendum to the review of professional practice or a one year improvement plan

Student growth as a defined percentage

21

CORE LEAs will choose will between both options in order to allow LEAs flexibility to maintain current systems that already meet USED

requirements, while ensuring rigorous models and consistency across all participating districts

• Student growth will represent a minimum of 20% of teacher and principal evaluation calculations

Any negotiated lawsuit or court order will supersede the requirements for student

growth per the CORE Waiver

Performance Indicators

• What is a performance indicator?

• Performance indicators in the business community are often referred to as “Key Performance Indicators” or KPIs. These refer to measurements that help monitor progress towards and achievement of your most critical goals or standards.

• In education, a school might consider failure rates or drop-out rates as a key indicator of whether or not the school is supporting at-risk students.

Performance Indicators, continued…

How do performance indicators fit into an evaluation system?

• Professional standards state the desired outcome

• Educators perform actions or demonstrate practices

• The indicator is the evidence that points to success or progress.

SMART Indicators• Specific- use clear, concise language• Measureable – make sure it is an outcome

measure• Achievable – it should be within the person’s

control to achieve• Relevant – it should match the critical standards• Time-phased – it can be formative as well as

summative.

Performance Indicators Take Different Forms

• Quantitative indicators: can be presented as numeric data, normally the result of a test or statistic.

• Qualitative indicators: non-numeric data that is collected from a variety of sources, including, for example, observation notes, photographs and videos, or surveys

• Process and output indicators: represent the efficiency or the productivity of a process or reflect the results of the process activities

• Actionable indicators: sufficiently in an organization's control to affect change.

Example #1Standard: Classroom Environment

Component: Teacher creates and maintains effective and safe environment for student learning

Indicator: Teacher fosters a culture of student accountability

Examples of locally defined measures may include: • Discipline referrals• Table points• Charts• Progressive discipline• Explicit norms and expectations

Example #2Standard: Classroom Environment

Component: Teacher promotes and maintains positive relationships with students

Indicator: Observations and data indicate classroom interactions are positive and respectful.

Examples of locally defined measures may include:• Safe and civil ratio of interactions• Parent and student surveys• Student referrals• Lesson analysis• Assessment results

Example #3Standard: Professional Growth and Development

Component: Teachers remain current by taking courses, reading professional literature, and remaining current on the evolution of thinking regarding instruction

Indicators:• Frequent teacher attendance in courses and workshops• Participation in learning networks with colleagues• Participation in professional organizations supporting

academic inquiry

Examples of indicator measurements include…..

Activity 31. Self-managing the work in your small, mixed groups,

review professional standards for teachers developed yesterday. Time available TBA.

2. Refer to district evaluation examples and resources at your table for useful examples of actions or indicators.

3. Fill in “Indicator Worksheet” with sample components, actions and indicators for each standard that the group agrees are of common interest.

4. Report to whole group.

Wrap UpOn our final day we will:

1. Finalize our indicators for teachers

2. Review the evaluation rubric for LEAs

3. Establish plans and next steps.

GoalsWednesday, August 7, 2013

8:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m.Goals for the Day1. Agree on priorities/themes for teachers and

administrators2. Review and provide input on LEA Educator

Evaluation Systems Preliminary Rubric3. Clarify other next step plans

• What will be my personal role in this process moving forward?

• Is there some hidden agenda that you are not telling us about?

• By what date is labor buy-in needed?• How do we talk about the growth model with labor

unions when it’s not developed yet?• Can growth scores within the trigger system be

applied to teacher teams instead of individual teachers and still meet the requirements of the waiver?

• What happens to the draft indicators now? Who will do the final work on them when we leave?

• What are the must-dos in the waiver?

Questions?

DesignDesign new or modify educator evaluation systems aligned to

local district contexts2013-14


Beginning in Fall 2013, LEAs will enter into a Peer Cycle of Review to ensure progress towards educator evaluation systems that meet School Quality Improvement System requirements and to promote continued collaboration and best practice sharing

between LEAs


Participating districts have flexibility to design an educator evaluation systems in partnership with key

stakeholders within the parameters of full implementation in 2015-2016

• Review teacher and administrator themes in district groups:

• Are these themes reflected in your district?• Do you feel your districts’ existing or evolving

evaluation system addresses these themes?

Activity 4

Final Walk-About:

• Please use post-it notes on indicators as needed to reflect your final thoughts on the indicators and examples.

Activity 4 Continued

• What do we like (how does the SD address our interests)?

• What areas of the SD need to be improved and why (what fundamental interests are not acceptably addressed?)

• What ideas do we have for how they can be improved?

• List key areas of disagreement that need to be resolved.

Focus for Critiquing Straw Designs

Evaluation System Cycle of

Review

Preliminary Rubric

Educator Evaluation SystemsSample Evaluation Scale-Point: Full-Score Educator Evaluation System

A full-score Educator Evaluation System:

• Has been communicated to multiple stakeholder groups via multiple information sessions;

• Has been revised in response to aggregated feedback;

• Incorporates all common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE;

• Differentiates among levels of teaching effectiveness using at least four categories;

• Accounts for student academic achievement and growth using multiple measures;

• Contributes to all decisions related to recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, layoff, and dismissal;

• Facilitates professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration in an exemplary fashion, which is to say that all the LEA provides opportunities for—and encourages—teachers to share their strengths and improve their weaknesses; and

• Utilizes classroom observation procedures that provide teachers with very high quality feedback regarding instructional practices, which is to say that feedback is detailed, complimentary, and actionable

Sample Evaluation Scale-Point: Minimum-Score Educator Evaluation SystemA minimum-score Educator Evaluation System:

• Has not been communicated to any stakeholders;

• Does not differentiate among levels of teaching effectiveness, or does so using less than four categories;

• Does not incorporate any common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE

• Does not account for student academic achievement and growth;

• Does not contribute—or only rarely contributes—to decisions related to recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, layoff, and dismissal;

• Does not facilitate professional growth, capacity building, or teacher collaboration;

• Does not utilize classroom observation procedures that provide teachers feedback, or utilizes procedures that provide; and vague, disparaging, and/or inactionable feedback

Educator Evaluation Systems Preliminary Rubric

Expectation 5 (highest score) 4 3 2 1 (lowest score)

LEA has meaningfully engaged stakeholders around evaluation system

Multiple information sessions were held with different stakeholder groups; feedback was aggregated and used to revise EES

Multiple information sessions were held; feedback was aggregated and used to revise EES

One information session was held; feedback was aggregated and used to revise EES

One information session was held

No information sessions were held

EES meaningfully differentiates among levels of teaching effectiveness using at least four categories and accounts for student academic achievement and growth

Four+ categories of effectiveness are used and multiple measures account for student academic growth

More than four categories of effectiveness are used and one measure accounts for student academic growth

Four categories of effectiveness are used and one measure accounts for student academic growth

Less than four categories of effectiveness are used or no measure accounts for student academic growth

Less than four categories of effectiveness are used and no measure accounts for student academic growth

EES is aligned to CORE Waiver common educator effectiveness factors

EES incorporates all common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE

EES incorporates three common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE

EES incorporates two common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE

EES incorporates one common educator effectiveness factor identified by CORE

EES fails to incorporate any common educator effectiveness factors identified by CORE

EES is utilized in recruitment, promotion, tenure, transfer, layoff, and dismissal decisions

EES is always utilized in all decision categories

EES usually utilized in all decision categories

EES is always utilized in some decision categories

EES is usually utilized in some decision categories

EES is rarely or never utilized in decision categories

EES facilitates professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration

EES facilitates professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration in an exemplary fashion

EES facilitates professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration

EES fails to facilitate one of the following: professional growth, capacity building, or and teacher collaboration

EES fails to facilitate two of the following: professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration

EES fails to facilitate all of the following: professional growth, capacity building, and teacher collaboration

EES classroom observation procedures provide teachers with quality feedback regarding instructional practice

Observation occurs often and procedures provide teachers with high quality feedback

Observation occurs regularly and procedures provide teachers with high quality feedback

Observation occurs regularly and procedures provide teachers with adequate feedback

Observation occurs rarely or procedures provide teachers with inadequate feedback

Observation does not occur or procedures do not provide teachers with feedback

• Review the rubric in your district groups• Use the blank rubric cells to respond with questions,

comments, suggestions.• Hand in your notes, please!

Activity 5

• In your district groups discuss next steps:

• Continue your planning from yesterday in the context of today’s discussions

• Share out:oWhat are you going to do first?oHow can CORE support you?

Final Activity

Next Steps

1. Approval of teacher indicators and evaluation rubric by CORE Board and district stakeholders

2. Development of administrator effectiveness indicators

3. Submission of all indicators and evaluation rubric to U.S. Dept. of Ed. for approval

Final Wrap Up

Next Steps1. Products/agreements from convening will be

packaged up in preparation for distribution to LEAs2. LEAs will engage with local stakeholder groups for

feedback and input3. LEA stakeholder feedback/input will be considered

and incorporated by the CORE Professional Capital Team

4. Revised/updated documents will be approved by CORE Board and redistributed to LEAs

5. All evaluation system guidelines and rubrics will be adopted by LEAs by December 1, 2013

6. Adopted guidelines and rubrics will be sent to USED

CORE Professional Capital Convening August 5-7, 2013 Courtyard Marriott, Natomas Sacramento Rick...

Documents

Transcript of CORE Professional Capital Convening August 5-7, 2013 Courtyard Marriott, Natomas Sacramento Rick...