Teacher and Principal Evaluation
description
Transcript of Teacher and Principal Evaluation
March 13, 2012
Effective Evaluation SystemsClear, rigorous expectations
Evaluations should be based on clear standards of instructional excellence that prioritize student learning
Multiple measuresEvaluations should consider multiple measures
of performance, primarily the teachers’ and administrators’ impact on student academic growth
Effective Evaluation SystemsMultiple Ratings
Evaluations should employ four to five rating levels to describe differences in teacher effectiveness
Regular FeedbackEvaluations should encourage frequent
observations and constructive critical feedbackSignificance
Evaluation outcomes must matter, evaluation data should be a major factor in employment of teachers
Effective Evaluation SystemsShould provide teachers and principals with
feedback that helps them grow
Should give schools the information needed to build strong instructional programs
Should hold teachers and leaders accountable for keeping students on track to graduate college ready or ready for work
High Quality Matters
Having a high quality teachers and principals can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background
The effect of increases in teacher quality swamps the impact of any other educational investment such as reductions in class size
Guiding PrincipalsAll students can master academically rigorous
material
The primary responsibility of teachers and principals is to ensure that students learn
Teachers and principals contribute to student learning in ways that can be observed and measured
Evaluation should form the basis of teacher and principal development
Guiding Principals
The principal’s most important job is helping teachers become and stay highly effective
Evaluations should be considered in the hiring, tenure, compensation, and retention
Performance Education Advisory Council (PEAC)A multi-stakeholder workgroup that has
representatives from unions, state department, regional centers and local school districts
Instituted in 2010
Charge was to provide framework for teacher and principal evaluation
Agreement February 6, 2012
Weights in Evaluation ModelsTEACHERS PRINCIPALS
Multiple student learning measures 45% Multiple student learning measures
Whole-school student learning indicators or student feedback
5% Teacher effectiveness outcomes
Observations of teacher performance and practice
40% Observations of principal performance and practice
Peer or parent feedback surveys 10% Staff, community, and/or student feedback surveys
CT Leadership Standards – 10-5-11 Draft 1: Vision, Mission, and Goals: Education leaders ensure the success and
achievement of all students by guiding the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning, a strong organizational mission, and high expectations for student performance.
2: Teaching and Learning: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by monitoring and continuously improving teaching and learning.
3: Organizational Systems and Safety: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by managing organizational systems and resources for a safe, high-performing learning environment.
4: Families and Stakeholders: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by collaborating with families and stakeholders to respond to diverse community interests and needs and to mobilize community resources.
5: Ethics and Integrity: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by being ethical and acting with integrity.
6: The Education System: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students and advocate for their students, faculty and staff needs by influencing systems of political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts affecting education.
Student Learning (45%)Half of the student learning element
based on the state testRecommended Additional Guidelines:• For state test portion of student learning, weight growth
measures more heavily than attainment• For locally developed measures, establish approved set of options
for districts to choose
Recommended Guidance from State:• Provide guidance to districts to include non-test measures of
student graduation or grade progression for secondary schools not demonstrating high graduation rates
• Provide guidance around using local measures to extend grade levels and subjects covered as possible
Other Guidelines• State model developed as default, with rigorous
process for local opt-out• Will provide # and duration of formal vs. informal
observations• Pre and post conference specifics• Detailed observation rubrics
• 4 rating levels - exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard
• High Quality observations of performance and practice• Rated against a standards-based rubric• Useful and timely feedback• Evaluators must receive training and demonstrate
proficiency on how to provide quality feedback
Additional ComponentsEvaluations that provide useful feedback and
results linked to professional development High quality professional development
Multiple student learning indicatorsFair, valid, reliable and usefulSafeguards for student, teacher and school
characteristics, attendance and mobilityGuidelines for parent, peer, community or staff
surveysA statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets
regularly to provide implementation guidance Pilot process or staggered implementation
January February March April May June July
Draft Timeline: Winter-Summer 2012
14
State model adopted by state board
Working groups begin developing state models and implementation plans
Districts apply for voluntary pilot program
State board adopts core guidelines for district systems
Training for all evaluators
Fall 2012 Winter 2012-13 Spring 2013 Summer 2013 Fall 2013
Draft Timeline: Fall 2012-Fall 2013
15
Additional state training for evaluators
February - Working groups convene and begin developing state models & implementation plans through June
Districts plans are submitted to CSDE for review/approval
Voluntary pilot program begins
Full-scale statewide implementation starts
Districts not participating in pilot plan and develop local systems
State Funding for Evaluation and Training
2.5 million to start new teacher and principal evaluations
5 million to open a principal’s academy at the University of CT school of education
Norwalk Public Schools Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development PlanDeveloped in collaboration with
administrators and teachers
Based on work of Charlotte Danielson and the Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching (1999)
Plan is to be reviewed annually
Training for evaluators and teachers
Norwalk Public Schools Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development PlanTeacher practice
Must know their contentOrganize the learning environment in a manner
which demonstrates respect of self and othersStudents actively engaged in the process of
learningUnderstand and use good pedagogical
knowledgeWork on their own professional developmentParticipate in developing a culture of trust,
respect and collaboration
Administrators’ Responsibilities in the Evaluation ProcessProvide strong instructional leadershipFoster and support an environment that
encourages outstanding performanceEngage and encourage teachers to examine
their workProvide resources to enable teachers to
master their craftBuild and nurture a culture of trust, respect
and collaborative dialogue
Danielson ModelEach domain contains a series of components and
elements that provide a basis for focused observation and assessment
I. Planning and Preparation
II. The Classroom Environment
III. Instruction
IV. Professional Responsibilities
Levels of PerformanceUnsatisfactory
Teacher does not yet appear to understand the concepts of the underlying the component
BasicUnderstands the concepts underlying
component, but implementation is sporadicProficient
Clearly understands the concepts underlying the concepts and implements them well
DistinguishedMaster teacher and makes a contribution to
the field both inside an d outside of the school
Observation ProcessSuccess of each component is dependent on a common
understanding and language about good instructional practice
Effective observation and evaluation results in meaningful professional development leading to improved student achievement
Minimum of 25 minutes and occur approximately 2 days after the pre-observation conference
Pre-observation conference determines the focus of the observation
Post observation conference occurs no more than 5 days after the observation
Written observation be completed within 20 days of the observation
Schedule of Formal ObservationsNon-Tenured Teacher
3 formal observations completed by November 1, December 15 and February 15
Tenured Teacher2 formal observations completed by February 1
and May firstEvaluators are encouraged to drop in
classroom routinely to observe teachers’ work. 3 minimum drop-in visits each semester. Reference of the informal drop-ins in the evaluation must be discussed with the teacher.
Examples of Documentation UsedWritten formal observationsLesson plansInstructional unitsEvidence of student learning through student
workMeasures of academic performanceTeacher’s professional activities in the schoolExamples of communication with parentsTeacher’s written self assessment
Differentiated EvaluationYear Non-Tenured Tenured
1 Appraisal Appraisal
2 Appraisal* (if distinguished in Year 1 then Directed Professional Growth
Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth
3 Directed Professional Growth
Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth
4 Directed Professional Growth
Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth
5 Tenured – Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth
Appraisal (Repeat of cycle)
6 Appraisal as a tenured teacher
Self Directed Professional GrowthTeachers who have distinguished themselves
by outstanding professional performance and a significant record of effecting student growth
Create a model of teacher autonomy where teaches monitor, analyze, and evaluate their own classroom and professional practice
Take responsibility in their own professional growth
DistinguishedAssessed in 2 of the 4 domains as distinguished
No component on Domain 2 (The Classroom Environment) and Domain 3 (Instruction) may be assessed below proficient
No more than one component in Domains 1 (Planning and Preparation) and 4 (Professional Responsibilities) may be assessed at the Basic level
Parameters of Self-Directed Professional Growth ActivitiesProjects submitted are substantive and
comprehensivePlans can be multi-year, but require annual
analysis and assessmentPlans must tie to standardsInnovation and creativity is supportedExamples – instructional units, curriculum
development, action research, case studies, study groups, immersion in content area, peer coaching
Focused AssistanceAssistance in a specific area of performance
Evaluator meets with the teacher to identify the specific area of improvement
HR Officer and NFT President are informed about the focused assistance
Evaluator develop a plan to improve performance Cycle of classroom observations Resources to be used Meetings to review progress Time frame for cycle
Assistance from a Collegial Collaborator can support the teacher
At the end of the assistance – teacher moves back to regular cycle of placed on intervention
Intervention ProcessA tenured teacher who is evaluated as “Basic”
in 2 or more domains in the annual assessment, and intensive process of intervention is in place
A teacher whose performance during the school year has been documented to be “Basic” in 2 or more domains (After focused assistance)
Superintendent review
Intervention ProcessInform the Human Resource (HR) Officer and Assistant
SuperintendentMeeting with central office staff, teacher and NFT
representationEvaluator develops a specific plan of improvement
Minimum of 2 observations (one each semester)Unannounced and announced observationsCompletion of self reflection formMonthly meetings with evaluator, HR Officer, central
office staff, teacher and representatives from NFT Identify a distinguished teacher who can be a resourceConclusion of a reasonable period (6 months to a year, a
termination of progress is made and a recommendation is made to go back to the regular cycle or termination
NPS Administrator Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth PlanDeveloped in collaboration with administrators and
executive staffFocused on student learningDescribes the process and goal of school leaders’
evaluation processEmphasis on self-reflection and best practices and
action toward specific goalsAdministrators are central to developing high
expectations of success and excellenceFocus on Instructional LeadershipBased on Connecticut Standards for School Leaders
and Administrators’ Evaluation ModelAnnual evaluation
Connecticut Standards for School LeadersI. The educated process-develop a common visionII. The learning process-knowledge of current researchIII. The teaching process-understands teaching and learningIV. Diverse perspectives-understands the role of education in a diverse
communityV. School goals-engages in establishment of school goalsVI. School culture-fosters collaborationVII. Student standards and assessment-establishes rigorous standardsVIII. School improvement-works to improve the quality of teaching and
learningIX. Professional development-professional development based on
school needsX. Integration of staff evaluation, professional development and school
improvement-integrates human capital strategies to improve teaching and learning
XI. Organization, resources and school policies-works with staff to use resources effectively
XII. School-community relations-collaborates with staff and community
Relationship between Connecticut Standards and Evaluation Growth ModelConnecticut Standards for
School LeadersAdministrator’s Evaluation Model
I. Educated Person Professional Community Building
II. The Learning Process Capacity BuildingSupervision and Evaluation
III. The Teaching Process Supervision and Evaluation
IV. Diverse Perspectives Other Accomplishments
V. School/Program Goals Development of School/Program Growth Plans
VI. School Culture Professional Community Building
VII. School Improvement Student/Staff/Family & Community Capacity Building
VIII. Professional Development Staff Capacity Building
Relationship between Connecticut Standards and Evaluation Growth Model Connecticut Standards for
School LeadersAdministrators’ Evaluation Model
IX. Professional Development Staff Capacity Building
X. Integration of Staff Evaluation, Professional Development, and School Improvement
Student/Staff/Family & Community Capacity Building
XI. Organization, Resources and School Policies
Policy and Management
XII. School-Community Relations
Community Capacity Building
Connecticut Code of Professional Responsibility for School Administrators
Responsibility to student
Responsibility to the student’s family
Responsibility to the community
Responsibility to the profession and staff
Components of SystemSchool/Program Growth PlansAdministrator Leader Induction
Responsibility of HR Officer Mentoring Training
Professional Growth and DevelopmentAccountability Process
Meet the Standards for School Leaders Meeting the CT Code of Professional Responsibility for
School Administrators Meeting performance requirements related to job
description Adhering to district policies Positively affecting student learning through development of
school improvement plan Reflecting on Student Improvement Goals
The Purpose of Evaluation
Assess the administrator competencies
Identify the administrator’s strengths
Identify areas in need of growth or improvement
Assess the administrator's efforts to grow professionally
Help determine contract renewal or granting of tenure
Data to be Used in the Summative Evaluation Document
Student work
Surveys
Student assessment results
Program/materials that support student learning
School observations and visits
Overview of AccountabilityObservations and visits at any timeConferences – minimum of 2
10-month Administrators
Conference to assess proficiencies and identify areas of strength and areas for growth
By October 15
Complete Self Evaluation By June 1
Summative Conference held By June 30
Completion of Summative Evaluation By July 15
Overview of Accountability
12 – Month Administrator
Conference to assess proficiencies and identify areas of strength and areas for growth
By October 15
Complete Self Evaluation By May 15
Summative Conference held Prior to June 30
Completion of Summative Evaluation By June 30
Corrective Assistance Program for Tenured Administrators
Evaluator identifies specific behaviors, benchmarks and a timeline for improvementSupervisor notifies the administrator and NASA in
writing Development of Action Plan
Lists specific concerns, expectations that will be used for an improvement timeline (one year)
List of resources and supports and schedule of conferences
Evaluation to document progress or lack of process Recommendation to go back to the evaluation cycle or
dismissalAdministrator has appeal rights to the
superintendent
Montgomery County Teacher Professional Growth SystemSix clear standards based on the NBPSTTraining for evaluator and teachers that created
a common language for what good teaching is aboutSkillful TeacherObservation and Analysis of Teaching
A professional growth cycle that integrates formal evaluation and a multi-year process of continued professional growth
Formal evaluation with a narrative assessments that provide qualitative feedback
Teacher Professional Growth System
Non-Tenured teachersAnnual Formal Evaluation
Tenured TeachersMulti-year evaluation cycleProfessional Development Plan
Special Evaluation at any time
Teacher Professional Growth SystemObservation – minimum 30 minutesAt least one formal must be announced and a
pre-observation conference is requiredMost observation conference held within 3
days of the formal observationPost observation report is completed after
the post observation conferenceRatings – Meets standard and Below standard
Teacher Professional Growth SystemProbationary Teachers with a Consulting Teacher (CT)
Probationary teachers with experience
Tenured Teachers in regular cycle
Tenured Teachers with a Consulting Teacher
At least 2 formal observations
At least 2 formal observations
At least 2 formal observations, 3 if teacher is rated below standard
At least 1 formal observation by principal, immediate supervisor or AP
One observation announced, at least one each semester
One observation announced, at least one each semester
One observation announced, at least one each semester
One observation announced, at least one each semester
CT complete a minimum of two additional formal observations
Principal or AP must observe at least half of the observations
CT completes a minimum of 3 formal observations
Other qualified observer complete one observation
Sources of Data Samples of student work, tests, assignments and feedbackUnit plansCommunication to parentsPublicationsProfessional Development PlansStudent results
Local and state examsAttendance discipline referralsAP or SAT testsStudent and parent surveys
Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
A Peer Assistance and Review Program that has consulting teachers who provide instructional support to novice teachers and veteran teachers who are performing below standard
PAR Panel comprised of 6 principals and 6 teachers
Nominated by unions and appointed by the superintendent
Reviews all cases and makes recommendations about returning to PGS or termination
Montgomery County A & S Professional Growth System
Six clear standards based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards
Support for novice administrators and underperforming administrators
Training for evaluator and teachers that created a common language for what good teaching is about
A professional growth cycle that integrates formal evaluation and a multi-year process of continued professional growth
Formal evaluation with a narrative assessments that provide qualitative feedback
Evaluation Process
First and second year as a principalFirst year after a change of levelFifth yearNinth yearEvery fifth and ninth yearAnnual Review process in non-evaluation
yearSpecial evaluation at anytime
Required Data Sources
Formal observationsSchool improvement process planQuarterly school improvement process
summariesProfessional development planState and local student assessmentsStaff profile including turnover, attendance
and experienceMonthly monitoring calendar
Examples of Observations for Administrators
Staff meetingsStudent meetingsParent and community meetingsSchool Improvement meetingsStaff evaluation conferencesParent conferencesPresentations Workgroups
Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
A Peer Assistance and Review Program that has consulting teachers who provide instructional support to novice teachers and veteran teachers who are performing below standard
PAR Panel comprised of 6 principals and 6 executive staff
Nominated by unions and appointed by the superintendent
Reviews all cases and makes recommendations about returning to PGS or termination