Educator Evaluation Systems & Educator Evaluation Systems & Effectiveness LabelsEffectiveness Labels

Venessa Keesler, Ph.D. Office of Evaluation, Strategic Research and

AccountabilityMichigan Department of Education

andCarla Howe

West Virginia Department of Education

Overview of Current Plan and Issues • Key important messages:Key important messages:– This was the FIRST YEAR; 800+ different This was the FIRST YEAR; 800+ different

systems (we have data to show this)systems (we have data to show this)–Districts did MASSIVE amounts of work to Districts did MASSIVE amounts of work to

accomplish thisaccomplish this–We do not believe that huge numbers of We do not believe that huge numbers of

MI teachers are ineffectiveMI teachers are ineffective

Current Circumstances

Our current legislation has allowed for local systems of Our current legislation has allowed for local systems of evaluations, which has given districts flexibility to design systems evaluations, which has given districts flexibility to design systems that work best for them.that work best for them.• Over 800 systems across the stateOver 800 systems across the state• Varying degrees of implementation across the state Varying degrees of implementation across the state Public reporting of effectiveness labels is required by SFSFPublic reporting of effectiveness labels is required by SFSF• Released in November via Released in November via mischooldata.orgmischooldata.org• Teachers labels reported in aggregate by school (number of Teachers labels reported in aggregate by school (number of

teachers in each of the four categories)teachers in each of the four categories)• Principals/Administrators reported at the district level.Principals/Administrators reported at the district level.

Important Context for the Important Context for the 2011-12 Results2011-12 Results

• First year of implementation of NEW systems based First year of implementation of NEW systems based on student growth measureson student growth measures

• State provided student growth measures are only State provided student growth measures are only available in grades 4-8 for reading and mathematicsavailable in grades 4-8 for reading and mathematics

• Varying components across systems (i.e. between Varying components across systems (i.e. between districts)districts)

• Varying percentages of growth across systems (i.e. Varying percentages of growth across systems (i.e. between districts)between districts)

• Some districts on prior contract (i.e. No new system, Some districts on prior contract (i.e. No new system, but reporting labels was required)but reporting labels was required)

K-12 Educator Evaluation Survey

• 792 districts completed the survey about their Evaluation systems from April to August

• Required to be completed by SFSF • Results provide valuable insight into local systems • The types of frameworks used • The % of student growth as a component (law states

“significant”, but it isn’t defined until 2013-14)• Types of growth measures included• Types of decisions informed by the results of

evaluations

Other Frameworks reported include: Charlotte Danielson Framework AND a local component, Teacher Advancement Program, My Learning Plan, 5 Dimensions of Teaching and Learning, Local District or ISD framework, McREL, STAGES, Kim Marshall Rubrics

50% of reporting districts

54 districts with a prior contract did not have to incorporate growth or a new system in 2011-12#

of

dis

tric

ts

PRELIMINARY/DRAFT FINDINGS

Appropriate given the FIRST year of local evaluation systems

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Other ways growth data are measures include: Combination of data from multiple assessments, pre/post test data, combination of local, state, national measures, benchmark testing, several sources as agreed upon in the professional growth plan

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Others types of assessment data reported that factor into educator evaluations include: AIMSweb, DRA, Ed Performance Series, Fontes & Pinnell, STAR Reading and Math, CBM for Math, DELTA Math

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Others types of assessment data reported that factor into educator evaluations include : AIMSweb, DRA, Ed Performance Series, Fontes & Pinnell, STAR Reading and Math, TerraNova, ITBS, DELTA Math

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Others types of assessment data reported that factor into educator evaluations include : AIMsweb, Ed Performance Series, STAR Reading and Math, Study Island

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Others types of assessment data reported that factor into educator evaluations include : common assessments, district benchmark assessments, Scantron Performance Series

# o

f dis

tric

ts

PRELIMINARY/DRAFT FINDINGS

Others types of decisions include: Assignment to committees or roles beyond the classroom, classroom support and assistance, layoff/recall/transfer, mentoring, staff placement, scheduling, setting improvement goals, merit pay

# o

f dis

tric

ts

Other Factors Reported As Part of Evaluations

Absenteeism rate Professional responsibilitiesClassroom management Student achievement dataContent knowledge Adherence to School

Improvement PlansInstructional practices Commitment to School &

DistrictUse of technology Learning environmentPedagogical knowledge and practice

Parental communication/involvement

Professional development participation

Relationships with students

PRELIMINARY/DRAFT FINDINGS

Understanding educator evaluation labels in MI

Overview of Statewide Results

Caveat….

• Labels are not EQUAL across districts• However, we know that people will want this

type of analysis and we want it done appropriately

Statewide ResultsLabel Number Percent

Ineffective 775 0.82%

Minimally Effective 1,998 2.11%

Effective 70,742 74.74%

Highly Effective 21,141 22.33%

IMPORTANT NOTES:•Based on the labels as determined by the local evaluation system; rigor of label designation is not consistent across districts•THERE is differentiation in label reporting now, 22% of teachers are reported as “highly effective” moving away from a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system•We do not believe that 1% of teachers labeled as “ineffective” is unreasonable in the first year

Impact of growth

• Law required districts to implement systems based in “significant part” on student growth

• How do the labels look different when the district used growth in greater percentages?

Growth and eval labelsLess than 10%

11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% >50% State

Ineffective 0.6% 0.6% 1% 0.5% 2% 1.4% .82%

Min Effective

1% 2% 3% 6% 3.5% 1% 2%

Effective 83% 71% 74% 64% 68% 82% 74%

Highly Effective

15% 26% 23% 30% 27% 15% 22%

26,253 22,639 25,309 5,650 3,143 1,485 87,575

More differentiation in

labels when growth counts at

a higher rate

LESS differentiation without growth

Distribution of Labels By Percent of Evaluation Based on Growth

Key Takeaways

• Distribution of labels (i.e. number of teachers in each category):– Is appropriate in Year 1 of implementation– Reflects differentiation (esp highly effective/effective)

• BUT we also see that systems using higher proportions of growth are able to make those differentiations more accurately

• The statewide evaluation system will move us toward more growth measures at higher rates

Who is more likely to be rated as highly effective or effective?

Teachers more likely to appear in highly effective category (versus other three) and in effective category (versus other two):•Female teachers•Those with more time in the same district•Teachers with a professional certificate (as opposed to all others)•Those with a master’s degree or higher•Teachers in districts with growth over 40% in their system

Who is less likely to be rated as effective or highly effective?

• Older teachers• New teachers (those in their first year of

teaching)• Mathematics, science, social science, special

education and world language teachers (relative elementary teachers)

• Teachers in systems where growth is less than 10% of the evaluation system

Relationship between effectiveness labels and Priority/Focus/Reward

• Important to remember:– A school-level designation does not mean that all

teachers within that school are in a given level of effectiveness

– Example: In a Priority School, there will be effective teachers as well as ineffective teachers

Ineffective Minimally Effective

Effective Highly Effective

Priority 2.5% 6.3% 74% 18%

Focus 0.5% 1.5% 80% 18%

Reward 0.5% 0.85% 74% 24%

Statewide 0.8% 2% 74% 22%

Notes:There are significantly more teachers reported as ineffective and minimally effective in Priority Schools than the statewide number, and in Focus or Reward schools.

Effectiveness Labels in Priority, Focus and Reward

Schools

Key Takeaways from the Results 1) These results are reasonable for the first

year; represent a huge effort on the part of districts

2) There is differentiation in the system; there will be more as growth becomes a higher component; but we still do not believe large numbers of Michigan teachers are “ineffective”

Questions?

Contact Michigan Department of EducationOffice of Evaluation, Strategic Research

and Accountability877-560-8378 Option 6

From Statehouse to School HouseDelaware’s Statewide Evaluation System

Delaware Performance Appraisal System DPAS II

• Pre and post conference meetings• Evidenced-based formative and summative

reports• Professional responsibility teacher self-

reflection component• Student improvement and growth targets• Supports for improving teacher performance

through expectations and individual improvement plans

Delaware Performance Appraisal System (DPAS II)

Legislation

Title 14 Education100 Accountability

Title 14 Education 100 Accountability106 Teacher Appraisal Process

DPAS II 5 Components

Teachers Specialists Administrators

Component 1Planning & Preparation

Planning & Preparation

Vision & Goals

Component 2Classroom

Environment

Professional Practice & Delivery of Services

Culture of Learning

Component 3 InstructionProfessional

Collaboration & Consultation

Management

Component 4Professional

ResponsibilitiesProfessional

ResponsibilitiesProfessional

Responsibilities

Component 5Student

ImprovementStudent

ImprovementStudent

Improvement

Component 3 Instruction Component

Criteria

Elements

DPAS IIr

NOT

NOT

NOT

NOT

_NOT

34

Beyond Expectations

Typically you will use expectations to improve teacher performance. However, there may be situations that require an IIP be implemented.

35

Observed Lesson Improvement PlanImprovement PlanExpectationsExpectationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Department of Education Monitoring

• RTTT – Development Coach Project

• EMS –Electronic Management System

• Audit of Districts

Audit Tool

DPAS-II Monitoring Summary 2012-2013 ___________District Rating:

Off-Track Somewhat Off-Track

Somewhat On-Track

On-Track

Development Coach RTTT Project• 63 participating schools representing all 19 Delaware School

Districts.

• Supported over 140 principals, assistant principals, and district expert evaluators.

• Reviewed and provided feedback on over 2000 formative and summative evaluation reports for school administrators.

• Participated in 100’s of pre/ post conferences, observations and walkthroughs with school administrators.

• Designed strategies to enhance the effectiveness of the DPAS II process with school administrators and teachers.

Development Coach RTTT Project• Gained expertise understanding DPAS II regulations, using

evidence based technical writing, rubric scoring, and teacher levels of performance.

• Developed relationships with their principals and the districts.

• Provided countywide and school district DPAS II training.

• Supported “deeper and richer” conversations among school administrators with an instructional focus.

• Increased the level and degree of accountability with participating school administrators.

Development Coach• Worked three hours a week with principals and

APs.

• Provided support for the implementation of the revised DPAS process.

• Accompanied the principal during pre conferences, observations, post conferences and walkthroughs and provided feedback for improvement.

Development Coach• Collaborated with District Office to calibrate

formatives, provide professional development, and ascertain training needs.

• Supported principal as the instructional leader of the school.

• Worked with principal to interpret teacher data and to work toward student improvement through instructional growth.

Principal• Debriefed with Development Coach weekly.

• Learned to prioritize formative observations.

• Enhanced knowledge of the DPAS process.– Technical writing & evidence collection– Management & scheduling of DPAS activities

Principal

• Received support for non DPAS related areas.

• Learned to use data from PLCs and Component V to help individual teachers work toward instructional growth.

• Received additional instructional resources for teacher development.

Challenges• Principal and DC finding time to meet.

• Moving from narrative to evidence based technical writing.

• Working with admins who do not want a coach.

• Monitoring the process.

• Districts not supporting principals in moving forward to remove incompetent teachers.

Triumphs• Increased number of – Principals meeting required number of formative and

summative evaluations.– IIPs and expectations over a two year period.

• Going beyond compliance.– Principals with Development Coach see DPAS as a tool to

improve instruction.– Principals are using expectations and IIPS to improve

instruction. – Teachers and admins recognize the value of pre and post

conference as a means to improve.

• 64 schools have signed on for a third year.

Lessons Learned• Hiring the people who had the skills and knowledge to be

coaches was essential (principals).

• New administrators adapted to evidence based technical writing faster than veteran administrators.

• Over time and with appropriate support in the process, administrators improved their practice and took less time completing evaluations.

• When implemented effectively and with fidelity, teachers have embraced the new system.

• Creating a trusted and confidential relationship with the coachee is critical to the success for the program.

Implications• What gets monitored gets done.

– Electronic reporting– State audits– Expert evaluators

• School districts and DOE need to monitor adherence to the evaluation process and the quality of written formatives and summatives.– Calibration activities– Administrative PLCs– Non-binding regulatory guidance

• School leaders need to commit to the process, allocate time, and provide professional learning resources.

Questions?http://www.doe.k12.de.us/csa/dpasii

Dr. Jacquelyn Wilson, Director DASL, University of Delaware, Email jowilson@udel.edu

Dr. Sharon Brittingham, Project Director Development Coach, Email: sharonbr@udel.edu

Dr. Steve Godowsky, Project Director Development Coach, Email: sgodow@udel.edu

Linda Grace, Development Coach, Email: lgrace@udel.edu

Lewis Cheatwood, Principal, Email: lewis.cheatwood@bsd.k12.de.us

Eric Niebrzydowski, Deputy Officer, Special Projects Teacher and Leader Effectiveness Unit, Delaware Department of Education, Email: eric.niebrzydowski@doe.k12.de.us