PACESetters!

Educator Effectiveness

Annual OrientationAugust 1, 2013

PACESetters!

Outcomes

Participants will understand the 2013-14 APS pilot process and evaluation system for teachers.

Participants will begin to develop their understandings regarding the teacher quality standards and elements.

Participants will begin to understand the teacher evaluation rubrics and their scoring.

MS

PACESetters!

Evaluation system – true or false?1. Standard VI, or the “other 50%,” is based on a single test score

and teachers can be fired based on this score.2. The purpose of the evaluation system is to provide meaningful

and credible feedback that improves performance. 3. 50% of specials teachers’ (Art, Music, PE, etc) overall

effectiveness ratings will be based on TCAP scores.4. The new evaluation system is a one-time event each year.5. Teachers will be responsible for providing evidence and artifacts

of effective practice.6. The new evaluation system will change the professional learning

courses currently offered.7. Every teacher will be evaluated every year.8. The new evaluation system will drive the way principals plan for

building professional development.9. The new evaluation system allows only principals and assistant

principals to be evaluators.10. Every licensed staff member will be evaluated in 2013-14, but

scores will start to “count” for non-probationary teachers in 2014-15.

MS

PACESetters!

CommitteesDistrict Performance Evaluation Advisory Council

(a.k.a. 1338)

Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC)

Other 50% - TERC

Principal Evaluation Revision Committee (PERC)

Other 50% - PERC- committee membership TBD

MS

PACESetters!

Evaluation System Implementation 2010Senate Bill 10-191 is passed, The Great Teachers and Leaders Law

2010-12 CDE developed Colorado Model Evaluation System as an option for Colorado districts’ use

2011-12 Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC) reviewed the Colorado Model Evaluation System and adapted it for APS implementation

2012-13 APS Limited Pilot was conducted with teachers from 11 schools and principals and AP’s from 8 schools

June 2013 Limited Pilot feedback was reviewed by TERC and changes were made to the APS evaluation rubric and guidelines

2013-14 All licensed employees will be evaluated in a district-wide pilot process

June 2014 Pilot feedback will be reviewed by TERC and changes will be made to the APS evaluation rubric and guidelines

MS

PACESetters!

Guiding Principles for Implementation of SB 10-191

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

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

Data should inform decisions, but professional judgment will always be a component of evaluations.

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

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

Teacher effectiveness equals student achievement – the teacher matters!

MS

PACESetters!

More Guiding Principles The APS evaluation is aligned to the CDE Model

evaluation system, refined according to APS priorities. Quality Standard VI, the “other 50%,” will be based upon

multiple, fair, valid measures of student growth. Pilot participants’ feedback will help the APS Teacher

Evaluation Revision Committee (TERC) make appropriate adjustments to the system.

The tools for collecting and documenting evaluation information should not become bigger than the process.

Continued support for evaluators’ Inter-rater agreement (IRA) will be an integral part of the pilot process in 2013-14.

MS

PACESetters!

Teacher Quality Standards

LM

PACESetters!

Teacher Evaluations

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.

LM

PACESetters!

Principal Quality Standards

LM

PACESetters!

Principal Evaluations

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.

LM

PACESetters!

Principal and Teacher PerformanceEvaluation Ratings

LM

PACESetters!

Special Service Providers (SSP)Who is considered a specialized service professional? Currently, there are nine categories of specialized service professionals:

• School audiologists • School psychologists • School nurses • School physical therapists • School occupational therapists • School counselors • School social workers • School speech language pathologists • School orientation and mobility specialists

The current teacher evaluation system for these individuals is being reviewed by groups of educators in the Colorado State Model Evaluation System pilot and feedback is being collected

LM

PACESetters!

APS evaluation system features Professional Learning Plan form Inclusion of student behavior in the proficient

column Inclusion of teacher behavior in the accomplished

and exemplary columns Creation of pre-observation and post-observation

forms for consistency of practice

LM

PACESetters!

APS Evaluation processes Self-assessment

Completed by the end of August Teacher (or Principal) Professional Learning Plan

Completed in collaboration with evaluator and based on self-evaluation and school goals (UIP)

Observations (minimum number) 4 informals (minimum 10 minutes) per year 1 formal for non-probationary teachers 3 formals for probationary teachers

Ongoing evidence/artifact collection by teacher and evaluator – not required for every element and standard

Mid year reviewLM

PACESetters!

1.Training

LM

PACESetters!

What does a pilot year mean? Hold harmless for non-probationary educators Ongoing professional learning and feedback – cycle

of learning for principals and teachers Communities of practice Tolerance for ambiguity required Formalized feedback structures Feedback by participants will inform our evaluation

process in the future

SO

PACESetters!

Inter-rater Agreement (IRA)

Inter-rater agreement measures the extent to which two or more evaluators using the same evaluation tool give the same rating to an identical observable situation.

SO

PACESetters!

Body of Evidence Teachers will share artifacts, such as:

Commonly developed lesson plans or assessments

Memos Letters Input from students Student work

Artifacts are not necessary for each and every standard and element, only for those which cannot be observed or about which there exists some disagreement

The rating of artifacts requires Inter Rater Agreement.

SO

PACESetters!

Scoring the rubricQuality Standard I: 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 (e.g. science, social studies, arts physical education, or world languages). The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathematics and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area(s).

BasicPartially Proficient Proficient

(Meets State Standard)Accomplished Exemplary

Element a: Teachers provide instruction that is aligned with the Colorado Academic Standards; their District’s organized plan of instruction; and the individual needs of their students.

The teacher: Delivers lesson plans that reflect:Daily review and revisionInstructional objectives appropriate for studentsExplicit connections to specific learning objectives and approved curriculum

The teacher:Delivers lesson plans based on:Students’ needsColorado Academic StandardsDistrict’s plan of instructionStated learning objectives

…andThe teacher: Collaborates with other school staff to vertically and horizontally align, articulate and deliver the approved curriculum

…andThe teacher: Provides rigorous and challenging contentStudents: Interact with rigorous and challenging content Perform at a level consistent with or above expectations

…andThe teacher: Regularly uses rubrics to provide timely feedback to students Students: Discuss strengths and next steps regarding their learning with their teacher

Professional Practice is Observable during a classroom observation. Professional Practice is Not Observable during a classroom observation.

SO

PACESetters!

DesigneesWho can evaluate teachers?

Section 22-9-106 (4) (a), C.R.S, allows performance evaluations to be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by CDE. Teachers may fill the role of an evaluator if they are a designee of an individual with a Principal or Administrator license and have completed a training on evaluation skills that has been approved by CDE. The use of designees will be evaluated by the Teacher Evaluation Revision Committee at the conclusion of the 2013-14 pilot.

 Any licensed staff member identified as the principal’s designee for the purpose of evaluation must have been identified as effective/meeting standards on their most recent performance evaluation.

SO

PACESetters!

Resources New web page

Principal and Teacher Effectiveness, www.pte.aurorak12.org

Principals and teachers will be able to download and print the Guidelines Handbook, the rubric and all other forms as needed at their site.

SO

PACESetters!

Online data collectionCDE has selected RANDA Solutions, Inc. to create an online performance management system as an optional technology platform at no cost to districts. This tool will provide online web-based entry of educator evaluation data and make tracking and reporting a much more useful and meaningful process for educators and districts.  Initial beta tests will be available to all districts by fall 2013. More information is coming soon. 

SO

PACESetters!

Thank you!