Educator evaluation policy overview-final

Educator EvaluationsUpdates

Tarance Hart

Office of Educator Quality

“A student assigned to a very good (effective) teacher for a

single school year may gain up to a full year’s worth of

additional academic growth compared to a student

assigned to a very poor (ineffective) teacher. Having a

series of strong or weak teachers in consecutive years

compounds the impact. Give high-need students three

highly effective teachers in a row and they may outperform

students taught by three ineffective teachers in a row by as

much as 50 percentile points.” (p. 9)

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on

differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from The New Teacher Project:

http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf

The Role of the Teacher

in Student Achievement

SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 2

Theory of Action


Improved Evaluation

System

Improved Educator Quality

Improved Student

Outcomes

“In theory, an evaluation system should identify and

measure individual teachers’ strengths and weaknesses

accurately and consistently, so that teachers get the

feedback they need to improve their practice and so

that schools can determine how best to allocate resources

and provide support.”

Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on

Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. Retrieved from the New Teacher Project: http://tntp.org/publications/view/the-widget-

effect-failure-to-act-on-differences-in-teacher-effectiveness

The Goals of an

Evaluation System


http://tntp.org/publications/view/the-widget-effect-failure-to-act-on-differences-in-teacher-effectiveness

Teacher evaluation systems have not aided

in developing a highly skilled teacher

workforce.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011; Toch & Rothman, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2009; Weisberg,

Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009

Goal of Teacher

Evaluation Systems


“Across the nation, states and districts are in

the process of building better teacher

evaluation systems that not only identify

highly effective teachers but also

systematically provide data and feedback

that can be used to improve teacher

practice.”Goe, L., Holdheide, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems A Tool to

Assist in the Development of Teacher Evaluation Systems. Retrieved from National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality:

http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf

Improving Teaching

Practice


http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf

Teacher evaluation systems that are

designed to help teachers improve have

three primary characteristics:

1. The System is Comprehensive and Specific

2. The System includes a Developmental Scale

3. The System Acknowledges and Rewards

Growth

Marzano, R. (2012). The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-19.

Using Teacher Evaluation to

Improve Teaching Practice


“Teacher evaluation systems alone are insufficient to

improve instructional quality and increase student

achievement. To be successful, reform efforts need to be

coherent and aligned across the educator career

continuum, beginning with recruitment and preparation, and

extending to support, evaluation, and compensation.”

Angela Minnici

The Mind Shift in Teacher Evaluation

Teacher Evaluation IS

NOT a “Silver Bullet”


Goal 4

Every School

Has Effective

Teachers and

Leaders

Strategy:

Implement with fidelity the

Mississippi Teacher

Evaluation System (MTES),

the Mississippi Principal

Evaluation System

(MPES), and other

educator evaluation

systems.

MS Board of Education’s

Strategic Plan


• Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System

• Mississippi Principal Evaluation System

• Mississippi Counselor Appraisal Rubric

• Mississippi Student Services Appraisal

Rubric

• Mississippi Speech-Language Pathologist

Assessment

• Mississippi Librarian Evaluation Instrument

Educator

Evaluations


Evaluation System

Details

Mississippi Teacher

Evaluation System (MTES)


M-STAR

Mississippi Teacher



• Teacher Self-Assessment

• Walk-through Visits

• Formal Observations/Conferences

• Review of Artifacts

• Student Survey (optional)

M-STAR


1. Teacher Self-Assessment (optional)

• Based on the M-STAR standards

2. Walk-through (informal) Observations

• A minimum of two are required (at least five are

recommended)

• Beyond the two required, the frequency and length

of time of the walk-through visits are at the

discretion of the school district.

The Teacher

Observation Cycle


3. Formal Observation and Conferences

• Pre-Observation Conference (optional)

Discussion of the lesson to be observed

Discussion of teacher self-assessment

• Formal Observation

Two are recommended

A minimum of one is required

A minimum of 30 minutes

• Formal Post-Observation Conference

Required after each formal observation

Discussion/Feedback

Next Steps/professional growth plan

4. Student Surveys (optional)

The Teacher

Observation Cycle


• Five domains (weighted equally)

1. Planning

2. Assessment

3. Instruction

4. Learning Environment

5. Professional Responsibilities

• 20 Standards

Rubric Overview


Rubric


Rubric


Domain V Professional Responsibilities

• 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. Teachers who receive this rating should receive professional

development and support to continue to grow and develop their skills.

• 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.

Performance Levels


Description

Level 4

Performance

ratings

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

• Ratings for all twenty standards should be

linked to the evidence collected during the

formal observation(s), walk-through

(informal) observations, artifact review,

and post-observation conference(s).

• Pre-observation conferences and student

surveys are optional methods of evidence

collection.

M-STAR Standards

Ratings


Example: Summative

Observation Rating


Individual Growth

Indicator

School-wide

Growth Indicator

Mississippi Teacher



State Tested Teachers

• M-STAR: 50%

• Individual Growth: 30%

• School-wide Growth: 20%

Tested Teachers (Grades 4-8)

SY 2014-2015


M-STAR50%

Schoolwide Growth

20%

Individual Growth

30%


M-STAR

Schoolwide Growth

Individual Growth

• Individual Growth Indicator (IGI): Student Growth

Percentile (SGP) metric

• School-wide Growth Indicator (SGI): Reading Growth

Index & Math Growth Index

Non-Tested Teachers and

Specialists

• M-STAR: 50%

• School-wide Growth: 50%

Non-Tested Teachers

SY 2014-2015


• School-wide Growth Indicator: [Reading Growth Index

+ Math Growth Index] ÷2 = SGI


• M-STAR: 50%

• Individual Growth: 30%

• School-wide: 20%

Non-Tested Teachers and

Specialists

• M-STAR: 50%

• Student

Learning/Support

Objectives: 30%

• School-wide: 20%

SY 2015-2016


M-STAR50%

Schoolwide Growth

20%

Individual Growth

30%


M-STAR

Schoolwide Growth

Individual Growth

M-STAR50%

Schoolwide Growth

20%

SLOs30%

Non-State Tested Teachers

M-STAR

Schoolwide Growth

SLOs

1 2 3 4

Minimal Basic Proficient Advanced

6.1 Growth occurs when a student:

– Increases an Achievement Level, with additional credit being

given for students who progress two (2) or more levels

– Stays at the same Proficient or Advanced

• Example: Student stays in Proficient from 4th to 5th grade.

– Moves up sufficiently within the lowest two Proficiency Levels

• Example: A student progresses from the bottom half of Basic

to the top half of Basic.

Proficiency Levels

27

Note: Number references (i.e., 6.1) refer to the business rules approved by the

Mississippi State Board of the Education.

Determining School-wide Growth

SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality

6.4 The lowest two (2) performance/ proficiency levels will be split into half at the mid-point of the range. In the event that the range is an odd number and cannot be split into two (2) equal halves, the lower half of the performance/proficiency level will be one (1) point larger than the upper half.

[See chart posted on SharePoint/Webinar PowerPoints for cut points.]

28

Splitting of the Lowest

Two Proficiency Levels


https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/Accountability/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id=/Accountability/Public Documents/Webinar PowerPoints/Growth Cut Points.xlsx&Source=https://districtaccess.mde.k12.ms.us/Accountability/Public Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder%3D/Accountability/Public Documents/Webinar PowerPoints%26FolderCTID%3D0x012000468A947A650AD842AE9321502F433B18%26View%3DAA617505-17AB-4327-94ED-3F3C630FA604&DefaultItemOpen=1&DefaultItemOpen=1

SY 2012 – 2013

Proficiency Level

Proficiency Level to Meet

GrowthExtra Weight in Growth

Advanced Advanced *****

Proficient Proficient Advanced (1.25)

Top Half of Basic Proficient Advanced (1.25)

Bottom Half of BasicTop Half of Basic

or ProficientAdvanced (1.25)

Top Half of MinimalBasic

(top or bottom)

Proficient (1.20)

Advanced (1.25)

Bottom Half of MinimalTop Half of Minimal

or Basic (top or bottom)

Proficient (1.20)

Advanced (1.25)

29

Weighting for School-wide Growth:

SY 2013-2014


6.5 Assessments used for calculation of growth will include:

• Grade-level (3-8) assessments in Reading/Language Arts;

• Grade-level (3-8) assessments in Mathematics;

• High School-level assessment in Reading/Language Arts;

• High School-level assessments in Mathematics;

• Alternate Assessment (3-8 and High School) in Reading; and

• Alternate Assessment (3-8 and High School) in Mathematics.

Growth will not be calculated for Science or U.S. History.

30

Subjects &

Assessments


6.13 The student must meet FAY for the

current year in order to be included in the

growth calculations but is not required to

meet FAY for the previous year.

31

FAY and Growth


6.15 The denominator for the growth

calculation includes any FAY student with

two (2) valid assessment scores (as defined

above [6.14]). The numerator will include

any student included in the denominator

who has demonstrated growth as defined

above, and weighted accordingly.

32

The Calculation


Example: 200 students with valid 2012 and 2013 math

scores.

The Calculation

33

# of Students Movement Weight Value

10 Low Minimal → High Minimal 1 10

20 Low Minimal → High Basic 1 20

10 High Minimal → High Minimal 0 0

10 High Minimal → Proficient 1.2 12

20 Low Basic → High Basic 1 20

10 High Basic → Low Basic 0 0

10 High Basic → High Basic 0 0

2 High Basic → Advanced 1.25 2.5

8 Proficient → High Basic 0 0

40 Proficient → Proficient 1 40

20 Proficient → Advanced 1.25 25

20 Advanced → Proficient 0 0

20 Advanced → Advanced 1 20

149.5 = 74.75% 200

74.75% = 74.8 pointsfor Math Growth – All Students component


Overall MTES

Score

Mississippi Teacher



Tested TeachersSummative Observation Rating

Individual Growth

School-wide Growth

Educator Effectiveness Score

Non-Tested Teachers and SpecialistsSummative Observation Rating

Student Learning/Support Objectives (SLO/SSO)

School-wide Growth

Educator Effectiveness Score

Educator

Effectiveness Score


MDE Homepage


Educator Evaluations

Webpage

Educator Evaluation

Resources


Educator Evaluation

Listserv

• A rating from 1-4 is required for each

standard

• Observation ratings and SLO/SSO overall

rating will be entered into Educator

Licensure Management System (ELMS)

• Educators will be able to view their

evaluation results in ELMS

Submitting Evaluation

Results in 2015-2016


Submitting Evaluation

Results in 2015-2016


Educator Licensure

Management Systems (ELMS)


• Video-based training to support consistent

ratings

• Master-coded by MS educators

• Examples of four performance levels

• Available in the MDE Canvas online learning

management system mde.instructure.com using

the same login and password used for MPES

• Email questions to [email protected]


Calibration Training

mailto:[email protected]

• Training on Specialists’ evaluation

instruments

• M-STAR calibration

• M-STAR resources

• Videos showing best practices linked to

the M-STAR standards

MDE Next Steps


http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/educator-evaluations

For more information, contact:

Tarance Hart, Ph.D.(601) 359-3631

[email protected]


MDE Contacts

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/educator-evaluations

mailto:[email protected]

Educator evaluation policy overview-final

Education

Transcript of Educator evaluation policy overview-final