BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at...

150

Transcript of BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at...

Page 1: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 2: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 3: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 4: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 5: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 6: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 7: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 8: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 9: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 10: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 11: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 12: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 13: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 14: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

DPS Alternative Licensure Waiver

Renewal Application

Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers to Make an Immediate Impact

in DPS Classrooms

1

Page 15: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Agenda

• Introductions • Overview of the Waiver

– The need and rationale

• Impact of the programs – Performance data

• The Next Generation – DPS Talent Management Strategy

2

Page 16: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

• Enable DPS to more effectively manage its recruiting pipeline. • Allow DPS to design preparation programs that match the most urgent

staffing needs in the district • Permit DPS to recommend candidates for licensure directly to the CDE

• Implement structures to ensure that alternative routes operate

more effectively. • Permit DPS to evaluate, select, and manage its alternative route

service providers • Address many of the difficulties alternative route programs would

otherwise encounter, such as the timeframe for the program completion, demonstration of subject matter competency, and differentiated induction programs

Rationale for the Waiver

3

Page 17: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

The management of our pipelines is part of a larger strategy to look at outcomes in decision making at every stage of the teacher lifecycle.

Pipeline Management

Induction & Licensure Tenure Career

Lattices

4

• Channel analysis completed with university partners and alternative routes to map value added gains and principal evaluations of channels

• Waiver enables DPS to consider outcomes when determining whether to recommend programs to CDE

• Waiver enables DPS to develop methodology to consider outcomes when recommending candidates to CDE for professional licensure and Endorsements

• DPS developing a tenure methodology that provides principals with teacher effectiveness ratings and student achievement data to assist in tenure granting decisions

• DPS is developing talent management systems that can identify talented teachers and craft career lattice opportunities for those teachers

Pipeline Management

Page 18: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

1. DPS will select, manage and evaluate its alternative route service providers Internal programs - Denver Teacher Residency, Denver Teach Today Teach For America (TFA) Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others

2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation program for licensure or endorsement directly to the CDE Consider both program design elements emphasized by CDE and student

achievement outcomes in ongoing management and approval of programs Consider performance outcomes when recommending individual

candidates from alternative routes to CDE

3. Directly manage the performance of our alternative teacher programs with agility and high expectations for student performance The timeframe for the program completion Demonstration of subject matter competency through various NCLB

pathways Create aligned induction programs

Overview of the DPS Waiver

5

Page 19: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Impact of the Waiver

Teacher performance, student outcomes, and staffing data by program type

Page 20: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

What Went Well…

7

• Two internal alternative route teacher preparation programs – Denver Teacher Residency (DTR) and Denver Teach Today - have established strong presence in DPS.

• DTR has earned national recognition as an exemplary district-based residency teacher preparation model.

• Using the DPS LEAP Framework for Teacher Effectiveness, novice teachers from alternative programs covered by the waiver score significantly higher than novice teachers from non-waiver alternative programs on the indicators for Learning Environment and Instruction.

• Approximately 90% of teachers prepared by waiver programs are hired into positions prior to the beginning of the school year.

• Teacher effectiveness ratings are now analyzed to monitor performance of all alternative route programs.

Page 21: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

The Next Phase

8

Page 22: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

DPS Human Capital Strategies for Effective Teachers

9

Find Them Grow Them Keep Them

DPS Framework for Effective Teaching - LEAP

• Redesigned recruiting & selection processes – aligned to the LEAP Framework, with rigorous selection process to prioritize candidates

• Alternative Route programs will continue to feed the DPS Pipeline: DTR, DTT, DTT

• Preparation route accountability through data analysis and review

• Design new residency model for undergraduates based on success of DTR

• Provide training based on the LEAP Framework

• Provide continuous feedback via regular observations

• Differentiated professional development

• ELA Academy / New Teacher Supports

• Teacher Leader Academy

• Data driven tenure and renewal decisions

• Performance based compensation

• Differentiated teacher roles

Page 23: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

10

Request for Renewal

• Through the work completed over the last five years, under the provisions of the Alternative Licensure Waiver, DPS has been able to effectively train, hire and retain high quality educators.

• DPS has refined and redesigned strategies to support Human Capital

Decision-Making to develop comprehensive talent management system to support teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development.

• DPS’ efforts in the areas of recruitment, training, evaluation, support and

development have been recognized at the state and national level and is influencing the teaching profession in many ways.

• Based on the results that have been achieved and the momentum DPS has

established in designing and implementing a comprehensive talent management strategy, DPS is seeking an extension of the current Waiver Application and supporting MOU.

Page 24: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

11

Page 25: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

DPS Alternative Licensure Waiver

Renewal Application

Appendices

Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers to

Make an Immediate Impact

in DPS Classrooms

1

Page 26: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix A – District Enrollment Trends

77,29279,423

81,870

84,424

88,200

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

DPS Enrollment Since 2009

Page 27: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix B – English Language Learners

3

2013

• 45%

2012

• 36%

2011

• 34%

2010

• 35%

2009

• 34%

2000

• 28%

1995

• 15%

3

2%

53% 31%

5% 9%

Cannot Calculate (e.g., incomplete HLQ)Non-ELLNon-Exited ELLProvisional ELL (e.g., not yet WAPT tested)Exited ELL

Page 28: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix C – Graduation Rate

39%43%

46%52%

56%59%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

On-Time Graduation Rate

On-Time Graduation Rate

Page 29: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix D - Median Growth Percentiles

43

49

52 51

53 53

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Median Growth Percentile

District(2013 N=19,829)

State Median DPS above the state median 4

consecutive years

Page 30: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix D – Student Achievement Comparison

*State data does not include DPS scores.

Page 31: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix E – Historical Hiring Overview Job Posting

1,210 1,124

1,733 1,753

2,002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total Job Postings

• DPS posted 2,002 teaching and school support positions for the 2013-14 school year, compared to only ~1,200 jobs for school years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

• ELA-S postings have shown an even more dramatic increase – the number of ELA-S postings has almost doubled in the last five years, from 102 in 2009-10 to 194 for the 2013-14 school year.

102 103 120

156

194

0

50

100

150

200

250

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

ELA-S Postings

Page 32: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix E – Historical Staffing Needs

2,707

40062

640

2,720

40057

661

3,147

232118

560

3,338

20699

498

3,063

477

112

720

3,261

40588

656

3,263

392184

984

0

1,0

00

2,0

00

3,0

00

4,0

00

5,0

00

Num

ber

of T

ea

che

rs

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Notes: Sample includes teachers with teacher job codes in 2006-07 through 2013-14, with 33,162 teacher yearsand 8,558 unique teachers. All data are from Denver Public Schools administrative records.

By Teacher Status

Number of Classroom Teachers in Denver Public Schools

Taught in Same School Last Year Taught in Different School Last Year

Non-Teaching Job Last Year Newly Hired

Page 33: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix F – Hiring Conversion Rates by Program Type

Applicants Conversion

Rate

Candidate Applied RFH %

CO Institution 1,874 1,443 376 26%

Alternate Route 309 251 129 51%

Out of State 1,173 886 163 18%

No Selection Made 1,883 1,263 264 21%

Total 5,239 3,843 932 24%

51%

26% 21% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Alternate Route CO Institution No Selection Made Out of State

Hiring Rates

Overall Hiring Rate: 24%

NOTE: Of all the preparation pathways, Alternate Routes have the highest conversion rate – more than half of applicants were hired into DPS jobs.

Page 34: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix G – Novice Teacher Performance • On Learning Environment, Instruction, and Observation Overall, novice teachers from

alternative programs in the waiver and from traditional programs score significantly higher than novice teachers from non-waiver alternative programs.

4.5

7

3.8

9

4.1

2

4.2

5

3.4

5

3.7

1

4.5

7

3.9

0

4.1

2

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Learning Environment Instruction Obervation

Alternative Waiver (69)

Alternative Non-Waiver (48)

Traditional (185)

Not Meeting 1-2

Approaching 3-4

Effective 5-6

Distinguished 7

Page 35: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Appendix H – Waiver Oversight Committee

The DPS Alternative Licensure Waiver Oversight Committee has defined an application process for new programs to complete prior to implementation. All programs operating under this waiver are required to apply through this process and applications are evaluated with the accompanying rubric.

Page 36: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Meeting Agenda CDE and DPS

October 10, 2012 8:30am – 3:30pm

DPS, 900 Grant Street, Room 108A

1 | P a g e

Purpose of the Meeting: Site-visit for the annual report/review of alternative preparation programs and licensure Objectives:

• Discuss lessons learned by three main alternative pathways • Determine how lessons learned will inform the future work • Plan for waiver recommendations for next phase of MOU

DPS Welcomes: Dr. Jami Goetz, Karen Lowenstein, Norma Lawanson, Tanya Klein 8:30am – 9:00am Breakfast 9:00am – 9:30am Overview for the Site Visit: Karen and Erin

• Context for alternative pathways for DPS (prior MOU) • Expected demand (staffing) • Ideas for next phase of MOU

9:30am - 11:30am Presentations on Lessons Learned

• 9:30am - Julene Newlin, Teach For America • 10:15am - Shannon Hagerman, Sarah Flanders, Andrea Ring -

Denver Teacher Residency • 11am - Denver Teaching Fellows (a composite)

12 – 1pm Lunch 1 – 1:30pm Review of Novice Teacher Performance at DPS, Elizabeth Stock, PhD, Planning and Analysis 1:30 – 3:30pm Working Meeting to discuss future work with DPS.

Guiding Data Points:

• If we manage alt routes closely, we can achieve better student outcomes and provide teachers in high-need areas, keeping current MOU provisions.

• If we create promising teacher career pathways, we will retain some of the ambitious alt route teachers we are now losing after the third year. We expect this will change as a result of our TIF grant.

• Math, bilingual and Special Ed positions continue to grow. In order to work

strategically fill these positions now, it will require a holistic approaching including internal sourcing and endorsing state-wide, to attract and retain candidates for DPS. What is happening on a state-level that may support this?

Page 37: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Program Name Reviewer Date

SECTION A Program Overview

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Program information Program information complete.

Missing information.

2.1: Brief program history (existing programs)

Program is well thought out and has strong record of setting and achieving ambitious goals, especially relating to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Size and composition of program clearly support program mission statement and goals.

Program is well thought out and has record of setting and achieving goals, especially relating to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Size and composition of program appear to support mission statement and goals.

Program has some record of setting and achieving goals related to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Some concern if size and composition of program support program mission statement and goals.

Size and composition of program do not support program mission statement and goals. Program goals are unclear. Program might not have clear record of setting and achieving goals.

N/A if new program.

2.2: Program plans for first three years (new programs)

Program is well thought out and goals are ambitious but achievable. Goals focus on teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Planned size and composition of program clearly will support mission statement and goals.

Program has set ambitious but achievable goals, especially relating to teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Planned size and composition of program appear to support mission statement and goals.

Some concern as to if planned size and composition of program will support goals. Some concern as to whether program has set ambitious but achievable goals, especially relating to teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

Planned size and composition of program do not align with program goals. Mission statement and/or program goals for first three years of operation are unclear. Program does not have clear goals relating to teacher effectiveness and student achievement.

N/A if existing program.

3.1: Description of program’s goals relating to district needs

Well-developed, ambitious goals are aligned to two or more of districts’ key needs, including diversity, second language learners, student achievement, closing the achievement gap, and filling hard-to-staff positions. Goals are listed on the Alternative Channel Reporting Template.

Program has ambitious goals with regards to at least one of district’s key needs, including diversity, second language learners, student achievement, closing the achievement gap and filling hard-to-staff positions. Goals are listed on the Alternative Channel Reporting Template.

Program has goals with regards to at least one of district’s key needs, but goals are not ambitious. Goals are listed on the Alternative Channel Reporting Template.

Goals do not align with district needs or with the way district measures success. Goals are not included on the Alternative Channel Reporting Template.

Page 38: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION A Program Overview

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

3.2: Chart of program’s goals/actuals relating to district needs

Ambitious goals/actuals for years 1 and 5 are aligned with district goals. Clearly demonstrates significant growth or desire for significant growth in areas of need between years 1 and 5.

Ambitious goals/actuals for years 1 and 5 are aligned with district goals. Evidence of growth or desire for growth in areas of need between years 1 and 5.

Goals/actuals outlined in chart might not reflect desire for growth in areas of need or might not be completely aligned with district goals.

Goals/actuals not aligned with district goals or incomplete.

4: Organizational chart Detailed current chart and projected chart reflects expected growth and includes dates assigned to positions that will be added. Expected growth appears to be achievable. Appropriately resourced to align with program goals.

Clear current chart. Projected chart included to reflect expected growth with dates assigned to positions that will be added. Resourced to align with program goals, but may be slightly over- or under-resourced.

Current chart provided, but unclear or dates not assigned to positions that will be added. Significant question as to whether program is appropriately resourced.

Current and/or projected chart not included or incomplete. Program is not appropriately resourced.

5:Projected revenues and expenses

Detailed and easy to follow and provides information required in template. Budget factors in growth, increased funding needs, etc. during the next three years. Fundraising goals are achievable, and usage of funds aligns with program goals.

Clear budget provides information required in template. Thought has gone into program changes that might affect the budget during the next three years. Some concern around fundraising goals, but they are achievable. Usage of funds aligns with program goals.

Budget format is difficult to follow, but attempts to reflect program changes that might affect the budget during the next three years. Some concern around fundraising goals and/or usage of funds. Inappropriately resourced in one key area.

Does not reflect any program changes that might occur during the next three years. Fundraising goals are unlikely and/or resource allocation is not well thought out.

Page 39: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION B Candidate Selection

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Key steps/phases of admissions and selection process specifically demonstrating how candidates will meet district and program’s needs

Specific steps/phases are based on national research indicators. Program uses multiple thorough approaches to select high-quality candidates to meet district and program needs, including the following critical areas: commitment to closing the achievement gap, demonstrated leadership and critical thinking skills, and excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

Step/phases are based on national research indicators. Program selects high-quality candidates to meet district and program needs, including the following critical areas: commitment to closing the achievement gap, demonstrated leadership and critical thinking skills, and excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

Steps/phases are outlined but are not clearly based on national research indicators. Program attempts to select high-quality candidates but does not address one critical area.

Steps/phases are outlined but not based on national research indicators. Multiple critical areas are not addressed. Program does not effectively screen for quality candidates.

2: Evaluation criteria for candidates attached; explanation provided if necessary

Evaluation criteria are based on national research indicators and address critical areas. Criteria include numerous quality metrics to ensure that high-quality candidates are selected to meet district and program needs. Background information provided if necessary.

Evaluation criteria are based on national research indicators and address critical areas. Criteria include quality metrics to ensure that high-quality candidates are selected to meet district and program needs. Background information provided if necessary.

Evaluation criteria are not clearly based on national research indicators and do not address one critical area. Criteria include some quality metrics but could be further developed to ensure that high-quality candidates are selected.

Evaluation criteria are not based on national research indicators. Multiple critical areas are not addressed. Criteria do not include quality metrics. Program does not effectively screen for quality candidates.

Page 40: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION C Program Induction

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Participation in district induction

Program will participate in district induction.

N/A if program will not participate in district induction.

2: How program will meet induction goals if applicable

Specifically outlines how program will meet induction goals regarding helping teachers build support systems and feel invested in DPS, as well as how they will improve their professional development. Program provides high level of differentiated support, including support at school sites. Program provides or connects teachers with multiple resources and opportunities for building support systems, feeling invested in the district, and participating in professional development.

Outlines how program will meet induction goals regarding helping teachers build support systems and feel invested in DPS, as well as how they will improve their professional development. Program provides strong support, including support at school sites. Program provides or connects teachers with resources and opportunities for building support systems, feeling invested in the district, and participating in professional development.

Outline provided but vague. Program provides some support. Program provides or connects teachers with a few resources and opportunities to build support systems, feel invested in the district, and participate in professional development. Program provides some support at school sites.

Outline does not address one or more induction goals. Program provides little to no support. Program does not provide or connect teachers with resources or opportunities to build support systems, feel invested in the district, and/or participate in professional development. Program does not provide support at school sites.

N/A for programs choosing district induction.

Page 41: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION D Coursework for

Programs Choosing Pre-

Designed Program

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Signed copy of contract with institutes of higher education and/or designated agencies

Signed copy provided for all institutions of higher education and/or designated agencies.

Not provided or not signed.

2: Documentation of program approval by CDE

Documentation provided. Documentation not provided.

3: Key elements of partnership

Clearly identifies key elements of partnership, including costs involved, available funding, resources provided, and more. Very well conceived and flexible, and partnership will be sustainable and effective.

Clearly identifies key elements of partnership, including costs involved, available funding, and resources provided. Well conceived and flexible. Partnership appears to be sustainable and effective.

Key elements are addressed, but one element is concerning. Some concern about sustainability or effectiveness of partnership.

One or more key element not addressed. Multiple elements are concerning. Significant concern around sustainability or effectiveness of partnership.

4.1: Course list, including sequence/ timeline and course descriptions, as well as document cross-referencing coursework with state standards

Clear course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, and clearly supports program goals. Clear document cross-referencing courses and standards. All standards addressed. Courses tie together theory and practice, are customized to meet program needs, and are well-sequenced.

Clear course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, and supports program goals. Clear document cross-referencing courses and standards. All standards addressed. Courses tie together theory and practice and are well-sequenced. Some course customization to meet program needs.

Course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, but some descriptions need clarification or might not clearly relate to program goals. Document provided cross-references courses and standards but hard to follow or unclear. Some question around how courses tie together theory and practice and/or course sequencing. Courses do not appear to be customized to meet program needs.

Some standards not covered, course descriptions missing, and/or document cross-referencing standards not submitted. Difficult to see how courses relate to program goals. Concern around how courses tie together theory and practice and/or course sequencing. Courses not customized to meet program needs.

Page 42: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION D Coursework for

Programs Choosing Pre-

Designed Program

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

4.2: Outline of how program prepares candidates to be effective teachers (how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and professional growth as educators and leaders).

Clear and thoughtful outline of how program prepares effective teachers, including how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as educators and leaders. Relates to program goals. Relevant documents attached as evidence. All areas well thought out.

Clear outline of how program prepares effective teachers, including how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as educators and leaders. Relates to program goals. Relevant documents attached as evidence. Most areas well thought out.

Outlines how program prepares effective teachers, but might not include one of the following elements: how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, and/or professional growth as educators and leaders. Parts are vague or unclear. Might need to be refined to clearly relate to program goals.

Outline is not well thought out and does not address multiple elements of preparation for effective teachers, and/or it is difficult to see how it relates to program goals.

5: Details of how program will meet endorsement requirements if applicable

Specific and detailed account of how state endorsement requirements will be met. Goes above and beyond state endorsement requirements to demonstrate that program will prepare teachers for endorsement.

Cleary outlines how all state endorsement requirements will be met.

Addresses state endorsement requirements, but some concern as to how program will meet one of the requirements.

Concern as to how program will meet multiple requirements. Does not adequately demonstrate that state endorsement requirements will be met.

N/A for programs that do not offer endorse-ment.

Page 43: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION E Coursework for

Programs Designing Own

Teacher Preparation Component

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Signed copy of contract with institutions of higher education/designated agencies if applicable

Signed copy provided for all institutions of higher education and/or designated agencies.

Not provided or not signed. N/A for programs designing and providing own training.

2: Key elements of partnership

Clearly identifies key elements of partnership, including costs involved, available funding, resources provided, and more. Very well conceived and flexible, and partnership will be sustainable and effective.

Clearly identifies key elements of partnership, including costs involved, available funding, and resources provided. Well conceived and flexible. Partnership appears to be sustainable and effective.

Key elements are addressed, but one element is concerning. Some concern about sustainability or effectiveness of partnership.

One or more key element not addressed. Multiple elements are concerning. Significant concern around sustainability or effectiveness of partnership.

N/A for programs designing and providing own training.

3.1: Course list, including sequence/ timeline and course descriptions, as well as document cross-referencing coursework with state standards

Clear course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, and clearly supports program goals. Clear document cross-referencing courses and standards. All standards addressed. Courses tie together theory and practice, are customized to meet program needs, and are well-sequenced.

Clear course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, and supports program goals. Clear document cross-referencing courses and standards. All standards addressed. Courses tie together theory and practice and are well-sequenced. Some course customization to meet program needs.

Course list includes sequence/timeline and course descriptions, but some descriptions need clarification or might not clearly relate to program goals. Document provided cross-references courses and standards but hard to follow or unclear. Some question around how courses tie together theory and practice and/or course sequencing. Courses do not appear to be customized to meet program needs.

Some standards not covered, course descriptions missing, and/or document cross-referencing standards not submitted. Difficult to see how courses relate to program goals. Concern around how courses tie together theory and practice and/or course sequencing. Courses not customized to meet program needs.

3.2: Details of how standard 3.1 will be addressed: (3.1) Design short and long-range standards-based instructional plans.

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated,

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated,

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated,

Program does not provide relevant task(s) required of candidates and/or description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated,

Page 44: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION E Coursework for

Programs Designing Own

Teacher Preparation Component

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) are well designed to be meaningful and relevant to teachers and address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. No supporting documents provided and/or description of items noted above is vague or unclear. Task(s) might not clearly address the standard or might not focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

and/or scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Task(s) does/do not relate to standard or focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

3.2: Details of how standard 3.3 will be addressed: (3.3) Develop and utilize a variety of informal and formal assessments, including rubrics.

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) are well designed to be meaningful and relevant to teachers and address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. No supporting documents provided and/or description of items noted above is vague or unclear. Task(s) might not clearly address the standard or might not focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

Program does not provide relevant task(s) required of candidates and/or description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and/or scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Task(s) does/do not relate to standard or focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

3.2: Details of how standard 6.2 will be addressed: (6.2) Design and/or modify standards-based instruction in

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how

Program provides relevant task(s) required of candidates and description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how

Program does not provide relevant task(s) required of candidates and/or description of how task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how

Page 45: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION E Coursework for

Programs Designing Own

Teacher Preparation Component

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

response to diagnosed student needs, including needs of exceptional learners and English language learners.

candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) are well designed to be meaningful and relevant to teachers and address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Supplemental documents provided as evidence. It is clear that task(s) address the standard and improve teacher effectiveness while impacting student achievement.

candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. No supporting documents provided and/or description of items noted above is vague or unclear. Task(s) might not clearly address the standard or might not focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

candidates’ performance proficiency will be evaluated, and/or scoring guide or criteria used to assess candidates’ proficiency. Task(s) does/do not relate to standard or focus on improving teacher effectiveness or student achievement.

3.3: Outline of how program prepares candidates to be effective teachers (how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and professional growth as educators and leaders).

Clear and thoughtful outline of how program prepares effective teachers, including how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as educators and leaders. Relates to program goals. Relevant documents attached as evidence. All areas well thought out.

Clear outline of how program prepares effective teachers, including how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as educators and leaders. Relates to program goals. Relevant documents attached as evidence. Most areas well thought out.

Outlines how program prepares effective teachers, but might not include one of the following elements: how it addresses commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, and/or professional growth as educators and leaders. Parts are vague or unclear. Might need to be refined to clearly relate to program goals.

Outline is not well thought out and does not address multiple elements of preparation for effective teachers, and/or it is difficult to see how it relates to program goals.

4: Details of how program will meet endorsement requirements if applicable

Specific and detailed account of how state endorsement requirements will be met. Goes above and beyond state endorsement requirements to demonstrate that program will prepare teachers for endorsement.

Cleary outlines how all state endorsement requirements will be met.

Addresses state endorsement requirements, but some concern as to how program will meet one of the requirements.

Concern as to how program will meet multiple requirements. Does not adequately demonstrate that state endorsement requirements will be met.

N/A for programs that do not offer endorse-ment.

Page 46: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION F Supervision and

Support

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Composition of alternative teacher support team and roles

Clear outline of composition of alternative teacher support team with roles well defined. Roles are well designed to provide support for teachers and include principals, candidates’ mentors, and program and training program representatives.

Clear outline of composition of alternative teacher support team and each person’s role. Roles are designed to provide support for teachers. Team includes principals, candidates’ mentors, and program and training program representatives.

Outline of composition of alternative teacher support team included but some roles are not designed to provide support for teachers. Possibly excludes principals, candidates’ mentors, or program and training program representatives.

Outline of composition of alternative teacher support team is incomplete, and/or roles are not defined. Roles do not provide support for teachers. Does not include principals, candidates’ mentors, and/or program and training program representatives.

2.1: Identify additional support providers and how they will be assigned

Additional support providers identified. Clear description of how they will be assigned, highlighting how support providers are matched with candidates to address many of their varying support needs (for example, those struggling to meet goals vs. those wanting additional support in particular subject areas and first-year vs. second-year participants).

Additional support providers identified. Clear description of how they will be assigned, taking into account some candidates’ varying support needs (for example, those struggling to meet goals vs. those wanting additional support in particular subject areas and first-year vs. second-year participants).

Additional support providers identified, but how they will be assigned needs clarification. Program takes into account at least one varying support needs of candidates (for example, those struggling to meet goals vs. those wanting additional support in particular subject areas and first-year vs. second-year participants).

Additional support providers are not identified or no attempt is made to describe how they will be assigned. Support providers are not assigned based on varying candidate needs.

N/A for programs that do not provide additional coaching/ mentoring.

2.2: Attach standards and criteria used to select support providers

Attached standards and criteria clearly demonstrate how support providers are chosen, based on evidence of exemplary teaching and school leadership, ability to model and counsel alternative teachers, relevant coursework, and valid license and endorsement in appropriate content areas. Process is well designed to select high-quality support providers.

Attached standards and criteria take into account evidence of support providers’ exemplary teaching and school leadership, ability to model and counsel alternative teachers, relevant coursework, and valid license and endorsement in appropriate content areas. Process selects high-quality support providers.

Standards and criteria attached but hard to follow and/or do not clearly show that support providers are chosen based on evidence of exemplary teaching and school leadership, ability to model and counsel alternative teachers, relevant coursework, or valid license and endorsement in appropriate content areas. Some concern as to whether process is designed to select high-quality support providers.

No standards and criteria submitted, or they do not require evidence of exemplary teaching and school leadership, ability to model and counsel alternative teachers, relevant coursework, and/or valid license and endorsement in appropriate content areas. Significant concern that program does not select high-quality support providers.

N/A for programs that do not provide additional coaching/ mentoring.

2.3: Training provided for support providers

Multiple training opportunities provided, as

Some additional training provided to help develop

Minimal additional training and/or resources provided to

No additional training and/or resources provided, or

N/A for programs

Page 47: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION F Supervision and

Support

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

well as additional resources to help develop support providers’ leadership skills, so they can be successful in helping teachers become more effective and improve student outcomes.

support providers leadership skills, so they can be successful in helping teachers become more effective and improve student outcomes. Additional resources made available to support providers.

help develop support providers’ leadership skills. Clarification needed as to how training will address helping teachers improve student outcomes.

training/resources seem to be without focus (specifically improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes).

that do not provide additional coaching/ mentoring.

2.4: Roles and responsibilities of support providers, including amount of time spent and role in candidate evaluation

Roles and responsibilities clearly explained, including amount of time spent and role in evaluating candidates. Time spent with candidate includes multiple observation opportunities, debrief, and one-on-one planning time. Clearly structured to support teachers and help them become more effective and improve student outcomes (for example, setting concrete goals with teachers, improving lesson planning and long-term planning, and/or incorporating lesson objectives). Possible inclusion of supporting documents, such as timeline for working with candidates and examples of required documentation.

Roles and responsibilities clearly explained, including amount of time spent and role in evaluating candidates. Time spent with candidate includes some observation opportunities, debrief, and one-on-one planning time. Structured to support teachers and help them become more effective and improve student outcomes (for example, setting concrete goals with teachers, improving lesson planning and long-term planning, and/or incorporating lesson objectives). Possible inclusion of supporting documents, such as timeline for working with candidates and examples of required documentation.

Roles and responsibilities explained, including amount of time spent and role in evaluating candidates, but few observation opportunities, debrief, and/or one-on-one planning time. Structured to provide some teacher support but might not include clear connection to improving teacher effectiveness and student outcomes (for example, might focus mostly on teacher well-being and classroom management with no link to academic goals).

Does not address amount of time spent or role in evaluating candidates and/or provides no guidelines for support providers in their work with teachers. Minimal, if any, observation opportunities, debrief, and/or one-on-one planning time. Not structured to provide effective teacher support.

N/A for programs that do not provide additional coaching/ mentoring.

3: Other professional development opportunities, support, and/or resources available to candidates (mandatory or optional)

Program has well-developed plan for filling in gaps in coaching/mentoring program. Program provides numerous mandatory and optional professional development opportunities, support, and resources for candidates to further their skill development and help

Program has thought through gaps in coaching/ mentoring program. Program provides professional development opportunities, support, and resources related to furthering candidates’ skill development and improving student outcomes. Notes if

Program has not clearly thought through gaps in coaching/mentoring program. Program provides limited professional development opportunities, support, and/or resources. Might not address if they are mandatory or optional. Might not be well defined, but

Program has not thought about gaps in coaching/ mentoring program. Program provides few, if any, professional development opportunities, support, and/or resources.

Page 48: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION F Supervision and

Support

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

them improve student outcomes. Support is differentiated.

professional development opportunities are mandatory or optional. Support is somewhat differentiated.

linked to candidates’ skill development and improving student outcomes. Support is not differentiated.

Page 49: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION G Ongoing

Evaluation and Management of

Candidates

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Who will evaluate candidates and what types of observation and supervision will be conducted (frequency, documentation, and use)

Clearly identifies who will evaluate candidates, what types of observation and supervision will be conducted, frequency of such observations, and how observations will be documented and used to improve teacher effectiveness, including progress regarding state standards and student outcomes. May include supporting documents. Candidates will be evaluated on multiple occasions (on average twice monthly or more) and will be provided feedback and opportunity for input.

Clearly identifies who will evaluate candidates, what types of observation and supervision will be conducted, frequency of such observations, and how observations will be documented and used to improve teacher effectiveness, including progress regarding state standards and student outcomes. Candidates will be evaluated on average monthly and will be provided feedback and opportunity for input.

Identifies who will evaluate candidates, what types of observation and supervision will be conducted, frequency of such observations, and how observations will be documented and used. Might not directly comment on how evaluation and observations will be used to improve teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Candidates will be evaluated at least every two months and will be provided feedback.

No consistent process in place for candidate observation and supervision. Candidates minimally evaluated and no feedback provided.

2: Copy of feedback and evaluation form based on state standards, must allow candidate to demonstrate proficiency.

Form is well designed to evaluate candidates based on state standards and requires candidates to achieve proficiency on all standards. Form goes beyond state standards to ensure candidates are effective in the classroom and progressing towards meeting licensure requirements.

Form clearly evaluates candidates based on state standards and requires candidates to demonstrate proficiency on all standards. Form ensures that candidates are effective in the classroom and progressing towards meeting licensure requirements.

Form does not clearly show how candidates can demonstrate proficiency on all state standards. Some concern that form does not reflect progress towards meeting licensure requirements or that expectations are not rigorous enough.

Form is not based on state standards or does not allow candidates to demonstrate proficiency on state standards. Form does not reflect progress towards meeting licensure requirements, and expectations are not rigorous enough.

3: Procedure for recommending candidates for licensure, including candidates’ requirements

Well-designed procedure for making licensure recommendations to Oversight Committee. Detailed list of what candidates need to meet to be recommended for licensure. If applicable, clear

Clear procedure for making licensure recommendations to Oversight Committee. Complete list of what candidates need to meet to be recommended for licensure. If applicable, clear rationale of why program

Clear procedure for making licensure recommendations to Oversight Committee and list of requirements to be recommended for licensure. If applicable, program has submitted rationale of why it would like to follow different

Outline of procedure for recommending candidates for licensure and/or list of requirements to be recommended for licensure is unclear. If applicable, program has submitted rationale of why it would like

Page 50: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

rationale of why program would like to follow different procedure and outline of that procedure. Program has high standards for licensure.

would like to follow different procedure and outline of that procedure. Program has high standards for licensure.

procedure but has some question as to why it is necessary. Some concern that program’s standards for licensure are not high enough.

to follow different procedure but does not demonstrate why it is necessary. Program does not have high standards for licensure.

4: Plan for candidate remediation if candidate does not meet licensure requirements

Program plan is well thought out and offers numerous interim steps (e.g., resources, additional support, professional development) to assist candidates. Principals have active role in developing remediation plans. Also involves alternative teacher support team.

Program plan is clear and offers some interim steps to assist candidates. Principals have a role in developing remediation plans. Also involves alternative teacher support team.

Program plan offers limited interim steps to assist candidates. Principals have minimal role in developing remediation plans. Involves members of alternative teacher support team to varying degrees.

Few, if any, interim steps exist to assist candidates, and/or principals and members of alternative teacher support teams are not involved.

5: Process for terminating program participation

Process is well thought out, taking into account principal feedback and involvement of alternative teacher support team members. Also takes into account candidates’ input.

Process is clear, taking into account principal feedback and involvement of alternative teacher support team members.

Process is not fully developed and/or needs further clarification/refining. Process involves principals and alternative teacher support team members.

No process is in place, or process does not involve principals and/or alternative teacher support teams.

6: Copy of contract or commitment form between candidates and program

Contract/commitment provides clear outline of requirements and expectations of candidates, roles and responsibilities of program, and procedures for remediation and/or termination of program participation. Responsibilities of program and candidates are well thought out and explained clearly.

Contract/commitment provides clear outline of requirements and expectations of candidates, roles and responsibilities of program, and procedures for remediation and/or termination of program participation. Responsibilities of program and candidates are clear.

Contract/commitment outlines requirements and expectations of candidates, roles and responsibilities of program, and procedures for remediation and/or termination of program participation, but some areas need clarification. Some concern that candidates will not fully understand responsibilities.

No copy provided or does not outline requirements and expectations of candidates, roles and responsibilities of program, and/or procedures for remediation and/or termination of program participation. Significant concern that candidates will not understand responsibilities.

Page 51: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION H Ongoing

Measurement of Student Learning

Outcomes

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Explanation of how program will collect outcomes around student performance and completed template submitted, demonstrating what data will be collected

Clear explanation of how program will collect outcomes around student performance, especially relating to district and program goals. Completed template demonstrates what data will be collected. Data to be collected is focused on student performance and growth outcomes for each content area in which candidates are placed and clearly addresses program goals. Program has multiple measures for tracking data for each content area.

Clear explanation of how program will collect outcomes around student performance, especially relating to district and program goals. Completed template demonstrates what data will be collected. Data to be collected clearly relates to student performance and growth outcomes for each content area in which candidates are placed and addresses program goals. Program has at least one measure for tracking data for each content area.

Attempts to explain how program will collect outcomes around student performance, but some concern about process. Completed template demonstrates what data will be collected, but data relating to student performance or growth outcomes will not be collected for each content area in which candidates are placed and/or is difficult to measure. Might not clearly relate to program goals.

Program does not focus on collecting outcomes around student performance and/or template is incomplete or does not demonstrate that data will be collected around student performance or growth outcomes for each content area in which candidates are placed. Does not relate to program goals.

2.1: Program’s measurable objectives for candidates regarding student achievement at the end of each year in the program

Objectives are ambitious, measurable, and demonstrate significant expected growth at the end of each year in the program. Objectives are aligned with district expectations and are clearly tied to meeting program goals. Program has multiple measurable objectives for candidates.

Objectives are ambitious, measurable, and demonstrate growth at the end of each year in the program. Objectives are clearly tied to meeting program goals.

Objectives are vague, difficult to measure, and/or do not demonstrate that growth is expected at the end of each year in the program. Objectives are related to program goals.

Objectives are not linked to student achievement and/or no expectation of significant growth for the end of each year in the program is given. Objectives might not be related to meeting program goals.

2.2: Program’s other measurable objectives, such as objectives relating to school culture or engagement

Objectives are ambitious and measurable. Objectives are aligned with district expectations and clearly support program goals.

Objectives are ambitious and measurable. Objectives support program goals.

Objectives are vague and/or difficult to measure. Some concern as to whether goals should be more ambitious.

Objectives are not measurable. Objectives do not clearly support program goals. Significant concern as to whether goals are ambitious enough.

N/A if program does not have other objectives.

Page 52: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION H Ongoing

Measurement of Student Learning

Outcomes

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

2.3: Plans to achieve 2.1 and 2.2

Program has developed well-designed plan of how program will achieve these goals, including specific steps program will take towards achieving goals. Takes into account what support and resources will be utilized. Goals are achievable.

Program has developed solid plan of how program will achieve these goals, including steps program will take towards achieving goals. Outlines support and resources that will be utilized. Goals are probably achievable with plan.

Explanation of how program plans on achieving these goals is vague and needs refining. Might not detail specific steps or consider support and resources program will utilize. Some concern as to whether program can achieve goals with plan.

Explanation of how program will achieve goals is incomplete. It does not cover all goals, site steps the program will take to ensure goals will be achieved, and/or consider necessary support and resources. Significant concern that program cannot achieve goals.

3: Goals candidates will be expected to set around student learning outcomes, including how they will be measured and measurement frequency

Goals are ambitious and are set around student learning outcomes. Well-designed procedures in place for how they will be measured and measurement frequency (at least twice per semester). Candidates are expected to set at least three goals. May be aligned with SGO process.

Goals are ambitious and set around student learning outcomes. Clear procedures in place for how they will be measured and measurement frequency (more than twice per year). Candidates are expected to set at least two goals. May be aligned with SGO process.

Goals are somewhat vague and/or difficult to measure, needing further refinement. Some concern about procedure for how they will be measured and measurement frequency (program might only measure twice per year). Candidates are expected to set one goal. Some concern that goals are not ambitious enough.

No clear candidate goals set, or goals are not set around student learning outcomes. Significant concern about procedure for how goals will be measured and measurement frequency (program might only measure once per year). Goals are not ambitious.

4: Support for candidates not meeting goals and explanation of how progress/ difficulty will be monitored and addressed

Process is well thought out and offers increased support in multiple areas (e.g., resources, additional coaching/ mentoring, professional development) for candidates. Involves principals and alternative teacher support teams. Clearly designed to effectively support candidates. Aligns with SGO process (such as SGO mid-year check if goals are unrealistic and need adjusting).

Process is clear and offers support in at least two areas (e.g., resources, additional coaching /mentoring, professional development) for candidates. Involves principals and alternative teacher support teams. Designed to support candidates. Aligns with SGO process (such as SGO mid-year check if goals are unrealistic and need adjusting).

Process needs further definition and/or offers limited support for candidates. Might not involve principals and/or all alternative teacher support team members. Some concern as to how well process will support candidates.

No clear process in place, and/or no additional support for candidates. Does not involve principals and/or alternative teacher support team members. Process does not support struggling candidates.

Page 53: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation
Page 54: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION I Ongoing Program

Review and Process for Continual

Improvement

Exceeds Expectations Well-conceived and

thoroughly developed Meets Expectations

Clear and complete

Approaching Expectations

Requires additional clarification and/or lacks

sufficient information

Does Not Meet Expectations

Irrelevant or missing information N/A Comments

1: Outline of foreseen issues with reporting data and identification of additional data elements program plans to provide if applicable

Issues outlined and addressed. Understandable reasoning for why program cannot provide some required reporting data. Specific plan for how program will submit data. Multiple specific and measurable elements are focused on student outcomes and teacher effectiveness. Data elements clearly support district and program goals.

Clear explanation of issues and plan for how program intends to submit data. Understandable reasoning for why program cannot provide some required data. Additional specific and measurable elements are focused on student outcomes and/or teacher effectiveness. Data elements clearly support district and program goals.

Explanation of issues and plan for how program intends to submit data. Some question about why program cannot submit required data. Some concern about what data program will be able to submit and if it will reflect program and district goals. Some concern about whether data elements are measurable.

Program cannot submit much of required reporting data. Unclear as to why program will have issues with reporting data. Significant concern about what data program will be able to submit. Data to be submitted does not reflect program and district goals. No additional data elements or elements are not measurable.

N/A for programs able to submit required data.

2: Plan to evaluate successes and areas for growth, including metrics used to measure interim success and end-of-year/overall program success

Logical and well-designed plan to evaluate successes and areas for growth. Includes multiple metrics for measuring interim success and end-of-year/overall program success that are focused on achieving district and program goals.

Clear plan to evaluate successes and areas for growth. Includes some metrics for measuring interim success and end-of-year/overall program success that are focused on achieving district and program goals.

Plan includes at least one metric for measuring interim success and end-of-year/overall program success. Metric(s) might be difficult to measure or not clearly focused on achieving district and program goals.

Does not include metrics used to measure interim success and/or end-of-year/overall program success, or metrics are difficult to measure and/or not focused on achieving district and program goals.

Page 55: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Application Evaluation Process Applicants are required to follow the application format to assure a consistent review process. A three-phase process will be used: Phase 1 Each application will be reviewed using application rubric to ensure that all required application components have been completed. Phase 2 Programs will receive feedback on application. The application must receive scores of “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations” in all categories on the rubric with an allowance of two “approaching expectations” scores; if more than two areas are considered “approaching expectations” or there are areas considered “not meeting expectations,” the program will be asked to make any necessary changes and resubmit the application. The revised application will be reviewed using the application rubric. The application will then be recommended to the Oversight Committee if it is determined that scoring requirements have been met. Phase 3 Once the application has passed the rubric, the application and scoring rubric will be submitted to the Oversight Committee for review. The Oversight Committee will review materials and may ask for additional information/clarification, after which a final decision will be made. Scoring Categories Exceeds Expectations: well-conceived and thoroughly developed Meets Expectations: clear and complete Approaching Expectations: requires additional clarification and/or lacks sufficient information Does Not Meet Expectations: irrelevant or missing information N/A: not applicable to program

Page 56: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Alternative Preparation Program Application Score Sheet Program Name

SECTION A Program Overview

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Program information 2.1: Brief program history (existing programs) 2.2: Program plans for first three years (new programs) 3.1: Description of program’s goals relating to district needs 3.2: Chart of program’s goals/actuals relating to district needs 4: Organizational chart 5:Projected revenues and expenses

SECTION B Candidate Selection

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Key steps/phases of admissions and selection process specifically demonstrating how candidates will meet district and program’s needs 2: Evaluation criteria for candidates attached; explanation provided if necessary

SECTION C Program Induction

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Participation in district induction 2: How program will meet induction goals if applicable

SECTION D Coursework for Programs Choosing Pre-Designed Program

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Signed copy of contract with institutes of higher education and/or designated agencies 2: Documentation of program approval by CDE 3: Key elements of partnership 4.1: Course list with sequence/timeline and course descriptions, including document cross-referencing coursework with state standards 4.2: Outline of how program prepares candidates to be effective teachers 5: Details of how program will meet endorsement requirements if applicable

Page 57: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION E Coursework for Programs Designing Own Teacher

Preparation Component

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Signed copy of contract with institutions of higher education/ designated agencies if applicable 2: Key elements of partnership 3.1: Course list with sequence/timeline and course descriptions, including document cross-referencing coursework with state standards 3.2: Details of how standard 3.1 will be addressed: (3.1) Design short and long-range standards-based instructional plans. 3.2: Details of how standard 3.3 will be addressed: (3.3) Develop and utilize a variety of informal and formal assessments, including rubrics.

3.2: Details of how standard 6.2 will be addressed: (6.2) Design and/or modify standards-based instruction in response to diagnosed student needs, including needs of exceptional learners and English language learners.

3.3: Outline of how program prepares candidates to be effective teachers 4: Details of how program will meet endorsement requirements if applicable

SECTION F Supervision and Support

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Composition of alternative teacher support team and roles 2.1: Identify additional support providers and how they will be assigned 2.2: Attach standards and criteria used to select support providers 2.3: Training provided for support providers 2.4: Roles and responsibilities of support providers, including amount of time spent and role in candidate evaluation 3: Other professional development opportunities, support, and/or resources available to candidates (mandatory or optional)

SECTION G Ongoing Evaluation and Management of Candidates

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Who will evaluate candidates and what types of observation and supervision will be conducted (frequency, documentation, and use) 2: Copy of feedback and evaluation form based on state standards 3: Procedure for recommending candidates for licensure, including candidates’ requirements 4: Plan for candidate remediation if candidate does not meet licensure requirements 5: Process for terminating program participation 6: Copy of contract or commitment form between candidates and program

Page 58: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

SECTION H Ongoing Measurement of Student Learning Outcomes

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Explanation of how program will collect outcomes around student performance and completed template submitted, demonstrating what data will be collected

2.1: Program’s measurable objectives for candidates regarding student achievement at the end of each year in the program 2.2: Program’s other measurable objectives, such as objectives relating to school culture or engagement 2.3: Plans to achieve (2.1) and (2.2) 3: Goals candidates will be expected to set around student learning outcomes, including how they will be measured and measurement frequency

4: Support for candidates not meeting goals and explanation of how progress/difficulty will be monitored and addressed

SECTION I Ongoing Program Review and Process for Continual

Improvement

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Approaching Expectations

Does Not Meet

Expectations

N/A

1: Outline of foreseen issues with reporting data and identification of additional data elements program plans to provide if applicable 2: Plan to evaluate successes and areas for growth, including metrics used to measure interim success and end-of-year/overall program success

Comments for Oversight Committee (Evidence of exemplary program design, commitment, etc.; program design elements of significant concern, general observations)

Page 59: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Proposal to Offer an Alternative Teacher Preparation Program to Denver Public Schools

If applying as an endorsement program only, please complete sections

A, B, D, E, G, H, and I. Section A- Program Overview

1. Program Information: Program Name Contact Person Mailing Address City, State and Zip Phone Fax E-mail Address Primary Partnering Agencies/Institutions

2. Provide a brief history of the program.

2.1 If the program is already in existence, focus on the past three years and include: size and composition of program, program mission statement, program success metrics (i.e. proven significant gains in student achievement, teacher effectiveness and retention) and any other relevant information.

2.2 If this is a new program, please share: planned size and composition of

program, mission statement, program goals for the first three years of operation, including student achievement, recruiting & selection, and why it is believed that the program will achieve these goals.

3. Denver Public Schools is committed to working with alternative route programs

that enable the district to address teacher shortages in areas of high need and focus on closing the achievement gap by selecting highly qualified, committed candidates.

3.1 Describe the program’s goals with regards to the key needs of the district,

including: diversity, second language learners, student achievement, closing the achievement gap and filling hard to staff positions. In addition, please list specific goals on the Alternative Channel Reporting Template.

3.2 Please complete the chart below.

Page 60: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Year 1 Goals / Current Year Actuals

Year 5 Goals

Number in Program

Percentage of Total

Number in Program

Percentage of Total

Demographics Participants of Color White/Other Male Participants Female Participants Participants with Fluency in Spanish

Career Changers (>3 years) Recent Graduates (0-3 years) Content Area Participants Qualified and Hired as ELA-E

Participants Qualified and Hired as ELA-S

Participants Qualified and Hired as Math Teachers

Participants Qualified for and Hired as Science Teachers

Participants Qualified for and Hired as Special Education Teachers

Participants Placed in DPS Designated Hard to Serve Schools (per ProComp standards)

Participants Placed at Schools Greater than 60% FRL

4. Provide a current organizational chart for the program. If the program will be growing, please provide a current and projected organizational chart with dates assigned to the positions that will be added.

5. Provide a three-year estimate of projected revenues and expenses used in the

development and administration of the program. Use the template provided or submit a copy of the program’s most recent budget as long as it includes similar information.

Page 61: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Section B- Selection of Candidates

1. Highlight the key steps/phases of the program’s admissions and selection process, demonstrating how high caliber, NCLB highly qualified candidates are selected to meet the district and program’s needs based on national research indicators. Critical areas for selection include: commitment to closing the achievement gap, demonstrated leadership and critical thinking skills, and excellent communication and interpersonal skills.

2. Please attach the criteria by which candidates will be evaluated (i.e. rubric or

checklist). If necessary, briefly explain any background information needed to review the criteria.

Section C- Program Induction Candidates are welcome to participate in the district induction program, or the program can design its own induction. The purpose of induction is to help new teachers advance their teaching practice in order to increase student achievement, build a support system and feel invested in Denver Public Schools. The current induction offered by Denver Public Schools includes: a day focused on orientation to the district and associated pre-work; a minimum of 16 hours of on-going professional development opportunities that participants record and submit in a log, above any teacher preparation coursework; and school-based mentoring, arranged by the principal, which consists of 20 contact hours per semester that are recorded and submitted in a mentor log. After all of the components are completed, the participant receives an induction certificate and can apply to the CDE for a professional license.

1. Please state whether candidates will or will not participate in the district induction

program. 2. If induction is to be provided by the program, outline how the program will meet

the goal of helping new teachers build a support system and feel invested in the district and how candidates will participate in additional professional development to further their skills beyond the initial training received in year one.

Sections D and E- Coursework For programs choosing to go through a pre-designed program provided by an institution of higher education or designated agency and approved by the CDE as a licensure program, please complete Section D.

Page 62: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

For all programs choosing to design their own teacher preparation component, whether partnering with an institution of higher education or providing the preparation component directly through the program, please complete Section E. Section D- Coursework for Programs Going Through a Pre-Designed Program

1. Provide a signed copy of the contract or agreement between the program and any institutions of higher education or designated agencies partnered with.

2. Provide documentation of the program approval by the CDE.

3. Identify the key elements of the partnership, such as costs involved, available

funding, and resources provided. 4. Demonstrate how the teacher education program is designed and delivered to

prepare candidates to be effective teachers. 4.1 Provide a course list, including course sequence/timeline and course

descriptions, as well as a document cross-referencing coursework with the State Board of Education’s Performance-Based Standards for Colorado Teachers, demonstrating that each standard will be covered by course material.

4.2 Outline how the program of instruction for candidates prepares the candidates to be effective teachers. How does it address commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as an educator and leader? Please attach relevant documents.

5. If an endorsement is to be added to the licensure program, also detail how the

State Board of Education’s endorsement requirements will be met. Section E- Coursework for Programs Designing Own Teacher Preparation Component

1. If designing the preparation program with an institute of higher education, provide a copy of the signed contract between the program and the institute of higher education.

2. Articulate the key elements of the partnership, such as costs involved, available

funding, and resources provided. 3. Demonstrate how the teacher education program is designed and delivered to

prepare candidates to be effective teachers.

Page 63: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

3.1 Provide a course list, including course sequence/timeline course descriptions, as well as a document cross-referencing coursework with the State Board of Education’s Performance-Based Standards for Colorado Teachers, demonstrating that each standard will be covered by course material.

3.2 In order for the Oversight Committee to understand how the program is ensuring that the state standards are addressed, for each of the standard elements listed below please provide: the relevant task(s) required of candidates and a description of how the task(s) will help candidates impact student achievement, how the candidate’s performance proficiency will be evaluated, and the scoring guide or criteria used to assess the candidate’s proficiency:

• Standard 3.1: Design short and long-range standards-based instructional plans.

• Standard 3.3: Develop and utilize a variety of informal and formal assessments, including rubrics.

• Standard 6.2: Design and/or modify standards-based instruction in response to diagnosed student needs, including the needs of exceptional learners and English language learners.

3.3 Outline how the program of instruction for candidates prepares the candidates to be effective teachers. How does it address commitment to academic achievement, cultural competency, ELL strategies, comprehensive content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional growth as an educator and leader? Please attach relevant documents.

4. If an endorsement is to be added to the licensure program, also detail how the

State Board of Education’s endorsement requirements will be met. Section F- Supervision and Support

1. Outline the composition of the alternative teacher support team and each person’s

role in the support and evaluation of candidates. Possible inclusions are: the principal, the candidate’s mentor, and/or a representative of the approved institution of higher education or alternative training program.

2. Will the program or institute of higher education provide additional

coaching/mentoring? If yes: 2.1 Identify who the additional support providers will be and how they will be

assigned. 2.2 Please attach the standards and criteria used for the selection of support

providers, which may include: evidence of exemplary teaching and school leadership, the ability to model and counsel the alternative teacher, relevant coursework, and a valid license and endorsement in the alternatively-licensed teacher’s content area.

Page 64: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2.3 Highlight any training provided for support providers and describe how the training will assist support providers in helping teachers become more effective and improve student outcomes.

2.4 Outline the roles and responsibilities of the support providers, including identification of the time the support providers are to spend in counseling and supervising the alternatively-licensed teacher, and the level of involvement of the support providers in the process of evaluating the candidate and providing recommendations with regard to licensure. Include any supporting documents, such as observation and debrief forms.

3. Describe any other professional development opportunities, support, and/or

resources available to candidates. Please note whether these opportunities are mandatory or optional.

Section G- Ongoing Evaluation and Management of Candidates

1. Identify who will be involved in evaluating candidates, including, but not limited

to, members of the alternative teacher support team. List the types of observation and supervision that will be conducted, the frequency of such observations, and how the observation will be documented and used to improve teacher effectiveness and student outcomes.

2. Please provide a copy of the program’s candidate performance feedback and

evaluation form(s) showing how each candidate in the program will be evaluated based on the State Board of Education’s Performance-Based Standards for Colorado Teachers. Each teacher must achieve proficiency (for example: level 3 on a 4 point scale, such as beginning understanding, partially proficient, proficient, exemplary) before recommendation for licensure.

3. DPS will provide a two-year alternative teacher license to qualified candidates.

Outline the program’s procedure for making recommendations to the Oversight Committee as to the eligibility of candidates at the end of the two-year period to receive a Colorado professional teacher license. Include what candidates need to meet to be recommended for licensure. If the program would like to follow a different process, such as recommending candidates for an initial or professional Colorado teacher license after one year, explain the program’s rationale and outline the procedure.

4. Explain the program’s plan for remediation if a candidate does not meet the

requirements for licensure. What interim steps will be taken to assist the candidate, and what role will the principal and teacher support team have in the development and oversight of the remediation plan?

5. Describe the circumstances that might necessitate termination of program

participation of a candidate and the process to be used in the event of termination,

Page 65: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

including opportunity for candidate input and the role of the principal and teacher support team in the decision.

6. Attach a copy of the contract or commitment form between candidates and the

program, which includes requirements and expectations of candidates, roles and responsibilities of the program, and procedures for remediation and termination of program participation.

Section H- Ongoing Measurement of Student Learning Outcomes

1. DPS is committed to selecting robust, rigorous, and high quality programs that are focused on significant gains in student achievement. Explain how the program will collect outcomes around student performance. Use the template provided, making modifications as necessary, to demonstrate what data will be collected. It is expected that programs will collect and track data around student performance and growth outcomes for each content area in which candidates are placed, as well as data reflecting the overall impact of the program (such as how the program’s performance compares to one or more of the Board of Education’s goals). This template will be submitted on a tri-annual and annual basis to demonstrate how the program is doing with regard to student outcomes.

2. Identify the program’s measurable objectives, modeled after the SMART goals

format or using a similar format, regarding student achievement. 2.1 What are the program’s measurable objectives for candidates at the end of

each year in the program (i.e. end of year 1, end of year 2, end of program duration)?

2.2 What are the program’s other measurable objectives, such as objectives relating to school culture or engagement?

2.3 Explain how the program plans on achieving these goals. 3. Describe the goals candidates will be expected to set around student learning

outcomes, how they will be measured, and frequency of measurement. 4. If a candidate falls short of meeting his or her goals, explain the support that will

be provided for that candidate and how further progress or difficulty will be monitored and addressed.

Section I- Ongoing Review of Program and Process for Continual Improvement As part of an ongoing review, programs are expected to report to the Oversight Committee on a tri-annual and annual basis regarding key success metrics and performance goals. Results are to be reported using the Alternative Channel Reporting Template. Please review template for details concerning the requirements listed below.

Page 66: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

On a tri-annual basis, programs are expected to submit the following at the Oversight Committee check-in meetings:

• Demographic Annual Actuals • Content Area Outcome Measures • Tri-Annual Candidate Data

At the second/midpoint Oversight Committee check-in meeting, programs are expected to submit:

• Items requested tri-annually (see above) • Midpoint survey results

On an annual basis, programs are expected to submit:

• Items requested tri-annually (see above) • End of Year Report • Board Goal Tracking

1. Please outline any foreseen issues with reporting this data, and identify additional data elements the program plans to provide to demonstrate teacher effectiveness and student outcomes to the Oversight Committee.

2. Outline how the program will evaluate its successes and areas for growth,

including the metrics used to measure interim success and end of year/overall program success.

Please direct applications and questions to:

Page 67: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Pathway Liaison Team

December 5, 2013

1

Page 68: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Agenda

1. Introductions

2. 2013 – 2014 Recruitment and Staffing Analysis

• Overall Conclusions

• Analysis by Pathway

3. 2014 – 2015 Staffing Projections

4. Discussion

• Composition of graduating class by pathway

• Feedback from Alumni by pathway

2

Page 69: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2013-2014 Recruitment and

Staffing Analysis

3

Page 70: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

In the past 5 years, the total number of job postings has increased by nearly 65%

4

1,210 1,124

1,733 1,753

2,002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Total Job Postings

• DPS posted 2,002 teaching and school support positions for the 2013-14 school year, compared to only ~1,200 jobs for school years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

• ELA-S postings have shown an even more dramatic increase – the number of ELA-S postings has almost doubled in the last five years, from 102 in 2009-10 to 194 for the 2013-14 school year.

*Numbers reflect all postings created for the given school year, starting at the beginning of the staffing cycle and ending on September 4.

102 103 120

156

194

0

50

100

150

200

250

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

ELA-S Postings

Page 71: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

5

498

168

164

134

112

90

83

81

72

61

60

59

54

54

50

33

26

2

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Elementary

Math

Special Ed

Language Arts

Intervention

Physical Education

Science

Social Science

ECE

Fine Arts

Kindergarten

Other

Gifted and Talented

Music

Foreign Language

ESL

Business/Technology

Montessori

*CDE Job Category = Professional Instructional : Classroom Instruction

Elementary 498

Math 168

Special Ed 164

Language Arts 134

Intervention 112

Top 5:

Classroom Teacher Postings by Subject Area 2013-14

Page 72: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

As of September 11, 2013 (once schools were in session):

• 5,239 candidates had created profiles in the DPS recruiting system.

• Of those 5,239 candidates, 3,843 (73%) had applied for at least one DPS job.

• Of the 3,843 applicants, 932 (24%) were recommended for hire (RFH).

6

309 251 129

1,874 1,443

376

1,883

1,263

264

1,173

886

163

5,239

3,843

932

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Candidate Applied RFH

Applicants to DPS 2013-14 Hiring Cycle

Out of State

No Selection Made

CO Institution

Alternate Route

73%

24%

Recruiting Overview

Page 73: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Unique Applicants per Classroom Teacher Positions Posted

7

Subject Applicants Postings Unique

Applicants/Posting

ELA-S 186 194 0.96

Special Ed 400 164 2.4

Physical Education 211 90 2.3

Fine Arts 188 61 3.1

Music 176 54 3.3

Elementary 1,511 498 3.0

Foreign Language 126 50 2.5

ECE 221 72 3.1

Science 298 83 3.6

Gifted and Talented 177 54 3.3

Language Arts 546 134 4.1

Math 706 168 4.2

10 Subjects with Lowest Applicant/Job Ratio

How does demand (postings) for different subject areas line up with supply (unique applicants)?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

ELA-S

Special Ed

Physical Ed

ECE

Foreign Language

Elementary

Music

Fine Arts

Science

Math

Language Arts

Business/Technology

Social Science

Intervention

ESL

Other

Kindergarten

Unique Applicants / Posting

Unique Applicants / Posting

Page 74: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

There were half as many unique external/non-DCTA applicants per ELA-S posting than for classroom teacher positions in general

8

Applicants Postings Unique

Applicants/Posting Postings filled by

External/non-DCTA

Unique applicants/external

ly-filled posting

ELA-S Positions 186 194 <1.0 92 2.0

All Classroom Teacher Positions 3,644 1,801 2.0 1,015 3.6

0.96

2.0 2.0

3.6

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Unique Applicants/Posting Uniqueapplicants/externally-filled

posting

Unique Applicant:Posting Ratios

ELA-S Positions

All Classroom TeacherPositions*

*CDE Job Category = Professional Instructional : Classroom Instruction

• Nearly half of all ELA-S postings were filled internally.

• For the remaining postings, there were an average of only 2 unique applicants per position.

Page 75: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Given the supply and demand

from the 2013-14 recruitment and

staffing cycle, how can we partner

around target candidates in the future?

9

Turn and Talk

Page 76: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Hiring Analysis by Pathway

10

Page 77: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Of all the preparation pathways, Alternate Routes have the highest conversion rate –

more than half of applicants were hired into DPS jobs.

Applicants Conversion

Rate

Candidate Applied RFH %

CO Institution 1,874 1,443 376 26%

Alternate Route 309 251 129 51%

Out of State 1,173 886 163 18%

No Selection Made 1,883 1,263 264 21%

Total 5,239 3,843 932 24% 11

51%

26% 21% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Alternate Route CO Institution No Selection Made Out of State

Hiring Rates

Overall Hiring Rate: 24%

Page 78: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

• However, alternate routes had the highest percentage of candidates who applied to hard-to-staff positions, as well as the highest conversion rate from applicants to hires.

12 *See Appendix for definition of “hard-to-staff.”

73 64 38 53

312 275

214

65

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CO Institution No SelectionMade

Out of State Alternate Route

Hard-to-Staff Hiring Rates

Hard to Staff - Hired Hard to Staff - Not Hired

Applied Hard to Staff

Applied % Hard to Staff

Applied Hard to Staff -

Hired Conversion Rate

CO Institution 1,443 385 27% 73 19%

No Selection Made 1,263 339 27% 64 19%

Out of State 886 252 28% 38 15%

Alternate Route 251 118 47% 53 45%

Total 3,843 1,094 28% 228 21%

385

339

252

118

0 100 200 300 400 500

CO Institution

No Selection Made

Out of State

Alternate Route

Applicants to Hard-to-Staff Positions

19% 19%

15%

45%

Colorado institutions provided the greatest volume of applicants to “hard-to-staff” positions.*

Page 79: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

• However, once again, alternate routes had the highest percentage of candidates who applied to high needs schools (91%), as well as the highest conversion rate from applicants to hires (43%).

13 *See Appendix for definition of “high needs.”

1,266

1,054

771

228

0 500 1,000 1,500

CO Institution

No Selection Made

Out of State

Alternate Route

Applicants to High Needs Schools

222 169 98 98

1,044 885

673

130

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

CO Institution No SelectionMade

Out of State AlternateRoute

Hiring Rate into High Needs Schools

High Needs - Hired High Needs - Not Hired

Applied High Needs -

Applied High Needs

Applicants (%) High Needs -

Hired High Needs Hired

(%)

CO Institution 1,443 1,266 88% 222 18%

No Selection Made 1,263 1,054 83% 169 16%

Out of State 886 771 87% 98 13%

Alternate Route 251 228 91% 98 43%

Total 3,843 3,319 86% 587 18%

18%

16%

13%

43%

Colorado institutions also provided the greatest volume of applicants to “high needs” schools.

Page 80: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

49% of applicants to ELA-S positions get hired, compared to only 24% of applicants to all jobs.

14

85%

51% 44%

37%

51%

21% 18% 26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

AlternateRoute

No SelectionMade

Out of State CO Institution

Hiring Rates: ELA-S vs. Overall

ELA-S Hiring Rate Overall Hiring Rate

23 27 19 23

40 26

24 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

CO Institution No SelectionMade

Out of State AlternateRoute

ELA-S Hiring Rates

ELA-S - Hired ELA-S - Not Hired

Overall Hiring Rate: 24%

ELA-S Hiring Rate: 49%

• Once again, applicants from alternate routes have the highest hiring rate of any pathway – 85% of alt route candidates to ELA-S positions get hired.

Applied ELA-S

Applicants ELA-S

Applied (%) ELA-S - Hired

ELA-S Hired (%)

CO Institution 1,443 63 4% 23 37%

No Selection Made 1,263 53 4% 27 51%

Out of State 886 43 5% 19 44%

Alternate Route 251 27 11% 23 85%

Total 3,843 186 5% 92 49%

Page 81: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

15

How can we work together to build a shared strategy to ensure the best

candidates are getting hired?

Questions

Page 82: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2014-2015 Hiring Projections

16

Page 83: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

17

Hiring Forecast 2014-2015

• Denver Public Schools projects that there will be between 800-950 external/internal non-DCTA classroom teacher hires for the 2014-15 academic year

• Projections are based on a predicted student enrollment increase of 3% in

district-run schools

Page 84: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

ELA-S Postings

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

DPS anticipates between 200-250 ELA-S postings for the 2014-15 school year.

ELA-S Forecast

Page 85: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Central Screening Process

19

Page 86: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

4 (0.5%)

55 (6%)

298 (32%)

476 (51%)

94 (10%)

5 (0.5%)

No InterviewOutstandingHighlyRecommend

RecommendRecommendwith

Reservations

Do NotRecommend

RFHs

20

• Interview scores for the overall applicant pool were normally distributed, suggesting that screeners consistently differentiated applicant quality in their ratings.

• 88% of applicants who were RFHed

received an interview score of recommend or higher, compared to only 68% of the entire candidate pool

602 (12%)

135 (3%)

1,012 (19%)

2,464 (47%)

925 (18%)

101 (2%)

No InterviewOutstandingHighlyRecommend

RecommendRecommendwith

Reservations

Do NotRecommend

All Applicants

5,239 total, 932 RFH

68% of all applicants received a rating of “recommend” or higher on their central interview

Page 87: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

278

36 20 83 86 51 86

3 52

9 1 32 43

8 38 7

33 8 30 4

142

132 187 112 66 50 30

68 32 72 34 20 17 46 11 33 2 27 14

0

1,230

644 580 511

394 427

283 283 214 215

194 169 152 150 139 137 141 119 82 51 0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Overview: All Applicants and Hires by Subject Area

Not Hired

Hired into Other Subject

Hired

Hiring rate shows the % of applicants to jobs in the subject area who were hired into that subject area. A higher % means applicants prepared to teach that content area have a higher likelihood of being hired.

Overview: All Applicants

1

Total Unique Applicants: 3,843 Total Hires: 932 Overall Hiring Rate: 24% 208

723

980 874

460 379

206

13

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Overview: First Application Submitted

17%

4% 3% 12%

16% 10%

22% 1%

17% 3% 0% 14% 20% 4% 20% 4% 19% 5% 24%

7%

This chart shows the # of applicants who submitted their first application each month. Applicants who apply earlier (before June) have a better chance of being hired.

3%

22%

53%

19%

2% 6%

32%

51%

10% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Outstanding,top

candidate

Highlyrecommend

Recommend Recommendwith

reservations

Do notrecommend

Applicant Quality

All Applicants RFH

Applicants were given an overall score on their central office interview during the screening process. This chart shows the % of applicants and hires who fell in each score category.

Page 88: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

7

1 2

1

3

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Special Ed Math Elementary Language Arts

Denver Teach Today: Hires by Subject Area

Not Hired

Hired into Other Subject

Hired

Denver Teach Today

2

Total Unique Applicants: 15 Total Hires: 10 Hiring Rate: 67%

0

1

4 4

2

4

0 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Denver Teach Today: Application First Submitted

70%

25%

100%

0%

0%

27%

60%

13%

0% 0%

20%

70%

10%

0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Outstanding,top candidate

Highlyrecommend

Recommend Recommendwith

reservations

Do notrecommend

DTT: Applicant Quality

All Applicants RFH

Page 89: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Denver Teacher Residency

3

Total Unique Applicants: 42 Total Hires: 39 Hiring Rate: 93%

19

9

2

5 4

4

3

4

1 1

2 1 1

3

1

1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Elementary Math Kindergarten Science Special Ed Intervention LanguageArts

SocialScience

StudentAdvisor

Denver Teacher Residency: Hires by Subject Area

Not Hired

Hired into Other Subject

Hired

20 20

1 1 0 0 0 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

DTR: Application First Submitted

73%

75%

29% 83%

80%

0% 0% 0% 0%

14%

55%

31%

0% 0%

15%

54%

31%

0% 0% 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Outstanding,top candidate

Highlyrecommend

Recommend Recommendwith

reservations

Do notrecommend

DTR: Applicant Quality

All Applicants RFHs

Page 90: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Framework for Effective Teaching: Observations Approaching effective among DTR-Novice - DPS

3 and 4: Approaching

effective

5 and 6: Effective

7: Distinguished

1 and 2: Not meeting

Positive Classroom culture and climate

Effective Classroom Management

Masterful Content Delivery High Impact Instructional Moves

1

Number of Teachers observed • DTR: 33 • All Novice: 307 • Other DPS: 3876

4.58

5.05

4.94

4.84

4.18

4.02

4.46

3.97

4.30

4.17

4.13

3.87

4.24

4.69

4.50

4.67

3.86

3.78

4.18

3.66

3.93

3.91

3.76

3.58

4.79

5.27

5.28

5.15

4.51

4.49

4.81

4.35

4.62

4.57

4.49

4.38

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

LE1 LE2 LE3 LE4 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

DTR

All Novice

Other DPS

Page 91: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Framework for Effective Teaching: Observations DTR-Novice - DPS

Positive Classroom Culture and Climate

Effective Classroom Management

Masterful Content Delivery High-Impact Instructional Moves

No cut point has been set for ‘Effective’ Teachers. This graph presents the percentages if cut point would be 4.50.

Number of Teachers observed • DTR: 33 • All Novice: 307 • Other DPS: 3876

2

63.6

%

78.8

%

63.6

%

69.7

%

39.4

%

27.3

%

48.5

%

21.2

%

51.5

%

33.3

%

36.4

%

21.2

%

39.4

%

60.6

%

51.5

%

63.7

%

24.1

%

19.5

%

34.2

%

14.7

%

28.0

%

24.1

%

21.8

%

16.9

%

65.8

%

85.5

%

79.3

%

83.1

%

51.9

%

49.5

%

66.6

%

42.2

%

56.9

%

55.7

%

49.8

%

46.6

%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

LE1 LE2 LE3 LE4 I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8

% o

f Tea

cher

s sco

ring

4.50

or h

ighe

r

DTR

All Novice

Other DPS

Page 92: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

1

Denver Public Schools – Preparation Partnership Team Channel Analysis Project

Technical Report November, 2010

Seidel, K., Davis, A., Whitcomb, J., Pidick, T., Harding-DeKam, J., Barker, H.,

Brenan, K., Gutierrez, C., Salazar, M., & Reimer, T.

1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Establishing the Partnership and its Commitment to Enhancing Teacher Quality

For nearly six years, the Preparation Partnership Team (PPT), a consortium of the Denver Public Schools (DPS), six universities, and three alternative teaching programs that train and certify teachers in Colorado have collaborated to develop better recruitment, preparation, induction, and professional development to support high-quality teachers for our urban district. This type of collaboration is unprecedented across institutions and among university-based and alternative programs and has proven to be mutually beneficial for all partners (listed below).

• Denver Public Schools (DPS) • Denver Teacher Residency (DTR) • The New Teacher Project (TNTP) • Teach for America (TFA) • Metropolitan State College of Denver (MSCD) • Regis University (Regis) • University of Colorado – Boulder (CU) • University of Colorado Denver (UCD) • University of Denver (DU) • University of Northern Colorado (UNC)

The goal of the PPT is to contribute to Denver Public Schools’ core mission—improving student achievement—by working through the partnership to understand and improve teacher quality in DPS. The PPT has taken a systemic, multi-institutional approach with the following goals:

• to facilitate open communication among preparation channels and DPS leadership in ways that improve alignment across the different institutions involved in teacher preparation and development

• to support and enhance implementation of DPS recruitment and hiring initiatives

”Teaching is our society’s noblest profession, requiring enormous skill, passion, creativity, and commitment. Nothing is more important to the future of our children than our teachers. Effective teaching is the one thing proven to truly move the achievement needle – to close our achievement gaps and give every one of our students a real chance to succeed.” (DPS Superintendent, Tom Boasberg)

Page 93: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2

• to develop data systems that provide critical information to PPT members about the nature and quality of the teacher force in DPS, and specifically of the alumni of these programs

• to improve the quality of new teachers entering the DPS pipeline

• to develop ongoing conversations that enable content area and skill alignment to the DPS teacher effectiveness framework

1.2 The Broader District Context – Connection to Janus Education Alliance (JEA)

In March 2008, the Janus Foundation made a generous three-year $3 million commitment to Denver Public Schools, creating the Janus Education Alliance. The Alliance supports work to position DPS as a national leader by building an organization that strategically recruits, hires, develops and retains high-quality teachers, with a focus on the first five teaching years.

Key strategies include enabling the district to unify, integrate and align current and needed human capital reforms under the Denver Plan; improve the quality of all educators through identifying and supporting the most effective teacher recruitment, training and evaluation strategies; build an innovative, enterprising organization that positions DPS to lead the nation in strategies for attracting and retaining the best educators; and establish DPS as the premier place for teachers to come to perfect their craft.

Developing a robust teacher pipeline involves attracting and keeping premier new teachers by improving existing partnerships and also designing alternative programs, and by providing targeted professional development and support. JEA is committed to supporting initiatives grounded in rigorous empirical evidence. Thus, JEA provided the impetus and leadership that led to the Channel Analysis Research and Development project (Channel Project) presented in this report.

1.3. The Channel Analysis Research and Development Project (Channel Project)

In 2008, the members of the PPT embarked on a collaborative research and development project known as The Channel Analysis Project: Examining Teacher Pipelines (Channel Project). The Channel Project was launched to provide the district and its partners with detailed data on novice teachers in DPS. Such data would allow partnership members to better understand the strengths and gaps of its novice teachers and engage in further conversation with the district to enhance the caliber of their graduates entering DPS. The initial goal was to identify individual teacher qualities, working contexts, and teaching practices of teachers who prove to be more effective in promoting student achievement. This information would give preparation partners the opportunity to examine, evaluate, and align their programs and activities with DPS mission and goals. In addition, the district hoped to use the data to enhance and differentiate novice teacher induction supports. The PPT designated key members (Primary Investigators = PIs) from

Page 94: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

3

the district and each preparation channel/program to work as the research team that designed and implemented the study.

In fall 2008, the PPT research team set out to develop a baseline portrait of newly hired teachers in DPS. The team sought (a) to describe key characteristics of newly hired teachers and features of the contexts in which they worked, (b) analyze teaching performance, and (c) identify aspects of their teaching practice associated with student achievement.

The baseline was conceptualized to provide both an overall portrait of newly hired teachers, and also to allow each channel partner to compare its graduates/completers to the overall pool of newly hired teachers. When relevant, the district also wanted to understand differences between teachers from alternative and university-based preparation channels; however, we note that given the collaborative nature of this inquiry, we sought to ensure that comparisons across these two groups were not done in ways that yielded simplistic “horse race” comparisons. Rather, we sought to use any noticeable differences across channels as opportunities for inquiry and learning. In addition, early in the research design process, the team decided to gather data on experienced teachers within DPS to better understand and contextualize the performance and practice of newly hired teachers.

1.4 Research Questions

With leadership from JEA and DPS, the PPT framed the following research questions:

For teachers hired in DPS Spring 2006 through fall 2008,

(1) What are the characteristics of newly hired novice teachers hired in DPS?

(2) What is the distribution of newly hired novice teachers across schools within the DPS School Performance Framework?

(3) With regard to teacher characteristics and distribution of newly hired teachers, do differences exist in the overall profile of teachers from alternative and university-based channels?

(4) What is the achievement growth of students in beginning teachers’ classrooms?

(5) How does the achievement growth of students of university-prepared beginning teachers compare that of beginning teachers from alternative preparation channels?

(6) What do classroom practices look like in teacher’s classrooms?

1.5 Phases of Work

The project began in the fall of 2008 with data collection on the demographic and academic characteristics of new teachers hired in DPS. In the spring of 2009, we examined the practice of experienced teachers to establish a baseline and identify instructional practices of those who were positively impacting student achievement. Given limitations in research-validated tools

Page 95: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

4

that we felt did not adequately reflect the context of an urban setting; the PPT developed and validated a new observation tool in the summer and fall of 2009. In the spring of 2010, we used the tool to conduct observations in new teachers’ classrooms from the various preparation channels, and analyses of this observation data are still being completed in fall 2010. In summer 2010, the team conducted analyses of growth scores to understand new teacher’s impact on student achievement. Table 1.1 summarizes the study’s three phases.

Each phase of the overall study had a unique research design. Methods for each phase are described within the relevant section of the report. For this Channel Analysis Report, which focuses on new teachers (0-4 years experience), we report findings from Phase I and Phase III. Comparisons with experienced teachers and analyses of classroom practice will be provided in separate reports that address the work accomplished in Phase II.

Table 1.1. Stages of the Research

Phase I

CHANNEL ANALYSIS: Descriptive Portrait

Fall 08: • Develop data base from paper HR files of new hires • Match DPS novice teachers to preparation channels

and identify all pipelines within channels • Summarize teacher characteristic data for novice

teachers to develop baseline portrait of newly-hired novice teachers in DPS teacher corps

Phase II

UNDERSTANDING EXPERIENCED TEACHER’S EFFECTIVE PRACTICES: Building a Baseline of Teacher Performance OBSERVATION TOOL DEVELOPMENT: Development and Validation of Quality Urban Classroom (QUC) Tool

Spring ’09: • Finalize research design and criteria for experienced

teacher sampling pool; invite teachers to participate • CLASS training and conduct observations with CLASS • Collect interview and focus group data to understand

effective experienced teacher’s practice Summer ’09: • Develop new observation tool (Quality Urban

Classroom, QUC) focused on culturally and linguistically diverse practices that foster student achievement and engagement

Fall ’09: • Conduct concurrent CLASS and QUC observations in

experienced teacher’s classrooms • Validate QUC

Phase III

ANALYSIS ACROSS CHANNELS: New Teacher’s Performance

Spring ‘10: • Conduct QUC observations in new teacher classrooms Summer ‘ 10: • Analyze growth scores of students in new teacher’s

classrooms • Analyze student growth in reading, writing, and

mathematics (grades 4-10) in new teacher’s

Page 96: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

5

classrooms; develop portrait of new teacher performance that compares performance of channel teachers with all new teachers in district

• Develop channel-specific portraits of new teacher performance for each channel to use in program evaluation and renewal

Page 97: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

6

2. BASELINE DESCRIPTIVE PORTRAIT OF NEW TEACHERS This section provides a baseline descriptive portrait of those new teachers hired in Denver Public Schools from 2006-2009 who completed initial teacher preparation in one of the nine partnership channels.

The teachers described in this section were hired in the midst of implementation of significant reforms in DPS hiring practices. Through the Janus Education Alliance, starting in fall 2008, DPS launched a comprehensive human capital management reform. DPS introduced initiatives to redesign human resource processes and integrate technology and systems to more efficiently and effectively support human capital management. Prior to spring 2009, DPS typically did not conclude making internal reassignments until March; as a result, new teachers hired from university-based channels or other districts were typically hired after many other Metro-area districts had completed hiring of new teachers. These reform activities shaped the district hiring pools in 2006-2008. Teachers hired from university-based programs in the 2006, 2007, and 2008 spring hiring cycles, are likely to be either those who were willing to wait until later in the Denver- Metro Area hiring cycle and/or who did not secure positions in other districts.

Other relevant hiring initiatives include the development of new alternative channels in DPS. In 2007, DPS entered into a contract with Teach for America (TFA) to place approximately 50 teachers in hard-to-staff positions. In 2008 DPS entered into a contract with The New Teacher Project to recruit 40-50 teachers annually and hired the first cohort of Denver Teaching Fellows (DTF). During the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years, approximately 150 teachers came from these two alternative routes; TFA (2007 and 2008 cohorts) and Denver Teaching Fellows (2008) are included in this study. Additionally, in 2009, DPS and the University of Denver partnered to establish the Denver Teacher Residency (DTR), thus data on DTR teachers are not included in this descriptive portrait.

2.1 Research Questions and Design for Descriptive Phase of Channel Analysis

We focus in this section on the following research questions:

• What are characteristics of teachers hired in DPS for the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 academic years?

• What is the distribution of newly hired teachers across schools within the DPS School Performance Framework?

• With regard to teacher characteristics and distribution of newly hired teachers, do differences exist in the overall profile of teachers from alternative and university-based channels?

The primary research method for this phase involved document review of individual teacher’s Human Resource (HR) files and development of classroom profiles for each teacher using district-provided, masked demographic and achievement data for all students associated with a teacher.

Page 98: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

7

2.2 Why Teacher Characteristics? Which Teacher Characteristics?

Teacher characteristics are factors that characterize individual teacher’s academic and demographic background. They are useful to understand some general patterns or features of the teacher work force. While some academic indicators have been associated with effective teacher performance (e.g., college entrance scores on ACT or SAT, or selectivity of a teacher’s undergraduate institution), in general, the research literature suggests that characteristics are an inadequate proxy for actual teacher performance. Though there are limitations in using teacher characteristics to make claims about teacher quality, DPS sought a more detailed picture of key demographics of new teachers, where newly hired were prepared, and where new teachers were placed.

2.2a. Teacher Characteristics Selected for Channel Analysis Study

The research team identified the variables listed below as characteristics of interest to the district and teacher preparation partners. These variables reflect commonly studied teacher characteristics in the teacher quality research literature. These variables were available in individual teacher’s Human Resource files. As discussed below, not all of the identified variables were used to develop the final descriptive portrait.

• Ethnicity • Gender • Undergraduate institution • Undergraduate degree subject area • Undergraduate GPA • Graduate institution (if applicable) • Graduate degree (if applicable) • Graduate GPA (if applicable) • Teacher preparation institution • Teacher preparation program name (institutions coded these according to codes that are

relevant to distinguish programs that are distinctive within an institution) • Teacher preparation date for completion • In-State teaching experience (# of years) • Out-of-state teaching experience (# of years)

2.2b. Data Collection and Development of Data Set

In fall 2008, with support from the Janus Education Alliance, Human Resource (HR) files were pulled for all individuals hired to teach in the 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 academic years. This data set includes those recruited and hired from Spring 2006 to Fall 2008. A total of approximately 1500 HR files were pulled. An initial data base was created that included the teacher characteristic variables listed above (2.2a.).

Page 99: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

8

In working with the HR files to develop a data base of novice teachers, we encountered and resolved several problems that led to the eventual truncation of the data set and dropping of many of the variables we initially set out to study.

First, in some cases teachers who were newly hired in DPS were not novice teachers. Teachers with five or more years of teaching experiences either in- or out-of-state were eliminated from the data set, as the focus of this study is novice teachers in DPS who had 0-4 years teaching experience.

Second, we found instability in how data about undergraduate and graduate institutions was recorded in HR files. We decided that since clear decision rules had not been implemented in recording undergraduate majors and/or in calculating GPAs, we would not use any of the variables associated with undergraduate institutions, majors or GPA variables to describe the novice teacher force (2006-2008).

Third, in some HR files the teacher preparation institution was missing. We made the following attempts to fill in missing data and to verify that teachers were matched with the appropriate preparation institutions. Each teacher preparation channel partner received a channel-specific data file to verify records. Each channel partner verified that teachers were correctly attributed to them and that information entered matched that institution’s records. In the verification process, institutions also provided institution-specific program data for later analysis by the institution. For example, some institutions used this as an opportunity to code elementary and secondary programs as distinctive programs.

Then, all preparation channel partners reviewed the names of individuals for whom no teacher preparation channel was noted in the HR file (approximately 500). Each institution inspected the list to determine if any individuals had in fact completed a teacher preparation program at that institution. Through this verification process some teachers were added to the overall data set. Many were not identified through this process, leaving us to conclude that these were novice teachers prepared at other institutions in or out of the state.

While it was disappointing to eliminate individuals due to missing data, the process of developing this comprehensive data base illustrated certain inadequacies in DPS’s data entry and file management practices associated with paper HR files and in university student information system data bases. Difficulties associated with pulling data from paper files and verifying data within university-based systems informed the design of electronic application/data bases now employed in DPS. Universities are using knowledge gained from their participation in this phase of the project to inform statewide efforts to implement Senate Bills 2010-36 and 2010-191.

Table 2.1 shows the number of teachers within each channel who were verified by the channel, for whom we had demographic data, and who had 0-4 years teaching experience in Fall 2008. Of the approximately 1500 files initially pulled, we were only able to include 506 teachers in this phase of the study. We note that this study, therefore, does not include newly hired teachers who were prepared in other channels, both within and outside CO. It is also likely that there are some teachers in the 1500 files that should have been claimed for the nine programs in the

Page 100: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

9

study, but that were not identified because of deficiencies in the records at the higher education institutions. As such, it is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a comprehensive study of newly hired novice teachers in DPS. Despite this caveat, we note that the PPT channels represent a range of alternative and university-based programs, and in this regard the Channel Project provides DPS with a well-delineated baseline of the newly hired novice teacher corps in DPS as it entered into a period of rigorous human capital reforms.

Table 2.1 Number of Novice Teachers (0-4 years) Confirmed as Hired in DPS from each Channel Spring 2006-Fall 2008

Teacher Preparation Channel Number of Novice Teachers Hired in DPS

Spring 2006-Fall 2008

Denver Teaching Fellows* (DTF) 31

Metropolitan College of Denver—Teacher in Residence (TIR) 130

Teach for America**(TFA) 55

Metropolitan College of Denver (MSCD) 73

Regis University (Regis) 12

University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) 33

University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) 61

University of Denver (DU) 18

University of Northern Colorado (UNC) 93

*First DTF cohort started fall 2008 **First TFA teachers hired fall 2007 2.2c. Sampling Strategy to Develop Pool of New Teachers for Channel Analysis

From this refined data set of 506 teachers in PPT channels, we then gathered additional data on the following variables:

• School where individual was employed in 2008-2009

• School’s SPF Framework Rating (1-4) as posted in Fall 2009 for the 2008-2009 year

• Content and grade level(s) teacher taught in 2008-2009

• Demographic data for all students associated with teacher in 2008-2009 academic year

o Ethnicity

o Free-Reduced Lunch

• Prior Achievement data for all students associated with teacher

o 2008 CSAP scores in reading/writing/math/science

o DRA scores for elementary students

Page 101: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

10

o CELA scores, if available

• Summative Achievement data for all students associated with teacher

o Benchmarks 1, 2, and 3 at any grade level or in any content where benchmark assessments were conducted

o 2009 CSAP scores in reading/writing/math/science

o DRA

o CELA scores, if available

In developing a final sampling pool, our goal was to sample a broad array of classrooms where new teachers were placed. Using these additional school and classroom variables, we identified a sample of 271 new teachers that ensured adequate variation across SPF frameworks and across tested grade-levels/subjects. Whenever possible, we ensured that more than 30 teachers total from a particular channel were included in the sample. Some channels, however, had fewer than 30 teachers total hired into the school district and/or fewer than 30 teaching in core academic subjects (reading, writing, mathematics, science) in tested grade levels.

The 271 teachers in our final sample for this descriptive portrait had all completed preparation in one of the channel partner programs, had 0-4 years of experience, held a teaching position in 2008-2009 in grades 4-10 in at least one of the tested subjects. We also worked with HR to verify whether those teachers in the final sampling pool held a master’s degree and/or ELA qualifications.

2.2d. Description of New Teachers in Channel Analysis

A total of 271 newly hired novice teachers were included in the final sampling pool for the Channel Analysis. Though we had hoped to present a more fine-grained portrait of new teachers, given the exigencies of data collection/verification, we are able to report on the following teacher characteristics: university or alternative pathway, years experience, ethnicity, and advanced degree.

University-Based & Alternative Preparation Pathways

Of the 271 new teachers included in final sampling pool, approximately one-third were prepared in an alternative pathway and two-thirds prepared in a university-based preparation program. We expect this ratio may change over time as programs adjust to meet DPS needs and the district is better able to track the impact of candidates from various pipelines.

Table 2.2. Frequency and Percent of Teachers in University-Based or Alternative Channels: Program Type Frequency Percent

University-Based Pathway 173 63.8

Alternative Preparation Pathway 98 36.1

TOTAL 271 100

Page 102: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

11

Teacher Experience

Figure 2.1 shows the number of teachers prepared in each channel (ranging from 6 to 56) as well as the distribution of years of teaching experience of teachers within each channel. In the overall sample of new teachers, 99 (36%) had one year of teaching experience, 106 (39%) had two years, 56 (20%) had three years teaching experience, and 13 (5%) had four years experience.

Figure 2.1. Total Years Teaching Experience, New Teachers with Performance Data, per Channel

Table 2.3. Total Years Teaching Experience, New Teachers with Performance Data, per Channel Teacher Preparation Channel (%’s are of the 271 teachers with student performance data)

% 1 year

% 2 years

% 3 years

% 4 years

University of Colorado at Boulder (CU Boulder) 30 50 15 5

Denver Teaching Fellows* (DTF) 90 5 5 0 University of Denver (DU) 44 22 22 11 Metropolitan College of Denver (Metro) 14 54 25 7 Regis University (Regis) 17 33 50 0 Teach for America**(TFA) 32 68 0 0

University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) 25 42 28 6 University of Northern Colorado (UNC) 40 33 26 2

Page 103: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

12

Metropolitan College of Denver—Teacher in Residence (Metro TIR) 54 17 20 9

Teacher Ethnicity

Figure 2.2 shows the ethnicity of teachers within the novice teacher sample. Overall, the teachers in this sample were predominantly White (83.5%), with 10.8% Hispanic/Latino, 3.8% African American, and less than 2% Asian or Native American .The ethnicity distribution across channels suggests that some channels are more effective at recruiting non-White teachers; however, no channel was contributing extensively to the district’s goal of increasing the diversity of the teacher force.

Figure 2.2 Ethnicity of New Teachers within Each Channel

Advanced Degrees & ELA Qualifications

Fifty-eight (21%) beginning teachers held master’s degrees. Of these, 48 were from traditional university pathways, and 10 were from an alternative pathway. We did not analyze the field of study for master’s degree, so we cannot report whether master’s degrees were earned in a field relevant for the teacher’s position. We know that some university-based preparation programs are embedded within a master’s degree. Forty-eight (18%) of beginning channel teachers were fully ELA-qualified.

95%

78%

100%

91%

83%

91% 79%

73%

78%

Page 104: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

13

2.3 Distribution of Teachers across DPS School Performance Framework

In fall 2008, DPS launched the School Performance Framework (SPF). The SPF takes into account a broad range of measures, including the school’s actual AYP and CSAP performance in a given year, and also demonstrated improvement from one year to the next. In addition, the SPF measures each school’s academic performance relative to other schools with similar demographics. The SPF provides a more comprehensive body of evidence and a more informative view of how much of an impact schools are having on their students from year to year. The SPF framework gathers data on student progress over time, student achievement levels, post-secondary readiness levels, student engagement, student re-enrollment or school demand, and parent satisfaction. For the Channel Project study, we translated the four SPF ratings into a 4-point scale where a rating of Distinguished=4, Meets Expectation=3, Accredited on Watch=2, and Accredited on Probation=1.

Given that research has shown that students in lowest-performing schools are more likely to have teachers who are novices, the PPT wanted to identify where newly hired teachers were filling teaching positions in DPS.

Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show the distribution of novice teachers across schools as rated using the SPF framework. We note in 2006-2008, “distinguished” schools hired almost no novice teachers (2.9%, 5 teachers total). 73% of teachers from alternative channels landed in schools that were either “on watch” or “on probation;” whereas, 56% of teachers in university-based channels were in schools with those ratings. 44% of teachers in university-based channels landed in schools that were either “meeting expectations” or “distinguished; whereas, only 26% of teachers in alternative channels were in schools with these ratings.

Figure 2.3. Distribution of Newly Hired Novice Teachers (with Performance Data) in Schools Classified by Overall School Performance Framework Ratings, by Channel

Page 105: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

14

Table2.4. Teachers in School Placements by School Performance Framework, per Channel Teacher Preparation Channel (%’s are of the 274 teachers with student performance data)

% in SPF1 Distinguished

% in SPF2 Meets

Expectations

% in SPF3 Accred on

Watch

% in SPF4 Accred on Probation

Univ of CO at Boulder (CU Boulder) 0 45 40 15

Denver Teaching Fellows* (DTF) 0 17 67 17 University of Denver (DU) 0 33 56 11 Metro State College of Denver (Metro) 0 48 39 13

Regis University (Regis) 0 50 33 17 Teach for America**(TFA) 0 27 50 24

Univ of CO at Denver (UCD) 6 33 44 17 Univ of Northern Colorado (UNC) 7 37 37 20 Metro State College of Denver—Teacher in Residence (Metro TIR) 0 31 57 12

Figure 2.4. Distribution of Teacher Placements by School Performance, University & Alternative

40.5%

41.0%

25.5%

57.1%

15.6% 17.3%

2.9%

Page 106: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

15

Given that the distribution of teachers from alternative and university-based channels was different across the SPF framework ratings, we also asked whether there were differences in the demographic features of students associated with teachers from alternative and university-based channels. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 show that teachers from alternative channels have a higher percentage of students who are designated as English language learners, as well as a higher percentage of students who meet requirements for free and reduced lunch. This uneven distribution reflects the district’s policies, particularly its contracts with TFA and DTF to recruit and prepare teachers for “hard-to-staff” schools.

Fifty-five percent of the students of alternative channel teachers came from a home where a language other than English was spoken compared to 40% of students of university-based channels. Similarly, the mean percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch was 78% for alternative channel teachers versus a mean of only 63% for students of university channel teachers. Overall, a large percentage of new teachers from all channels, both university and alternative, are being hired into schools and classrooms serving students with great needs.

Figure 2.5. Distribution of ELL Students by University and Alternative Routes

60.1%

13.0%

44.8%

23.2%

18.9%

8.0%

22.5%

9.5%

Page 107: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

16

Figure 2.6. Distribution of F/RL Students by University and Alternative Routes

Page 108: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

17

3. UNDERSTANDING NEW TEACHER’S PERFORMANCE In this section, we report findings from an analysis of CSAP gains of students of beginning teachers from the Channel Project programs who taught reading, writing, and/or mathematics in grades 4 through 10.

3.1 Research Questions

We posed the following research questions:

• What is the achievement growth of students in new teachers’ classrooms?

• How does student achievement between university-based and alternative pathways compare?

• How does student achievement between first year teachers from university-based and alternative pathways compare?

In addition, we set a baseline for future annual analysis for the question:

• How does student achievement between teachers in all channel pathways and all new teachers compare?

3.2. Methods

To draw associations between teacher preparation and student achievement, CSAP Growth Score Percentiles were used. Associations were examined for Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In each case, Growth Score Percentiles were based on growth from the 2008 to the 2009 administrations of the CSAP. A score of 50 indicates that a student made the average growth of other students in Colorado with the same initial (2008) score. Scores below 50 suggest that students are losing ground in comparison to similar students across the state.

We report CSAP achievement gains using two descriptive indicators: growth score percentile medians and empirical Bayes estimates of growth score percentile means. Both of these approaches take into account the fact that the distribution of percentiles is rectangular rather than normal, and extreme scores occur much more frequently than in a normal distribution. Use of the median and empirical Bayes estimates of means is less sensitive to extreme scores.

We made use of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to compare the achievement gains of students of teachers in university-based and alternative pathways. Recognizing that there were differences in school level performance of the schools in which alternative-pathway teachers were placed, and that the groups differed in respect to the proportion of ELL and FRL students in their classes, we conducted the comparison in stages. In the first stage, we conducted a descriptive (“unconditional”) comparison of alternative and university-prepared teachers. In the second stage, we adjusted for FRL and ELL at both the individual student level and the classroom level. In the final step, we also adjusted for overall school performance.

Page 109: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

18

3.3. Analyses

3.3a. University-based Compared to Alternative Channels

Students of university-prepared beginning teachers demonstrated higher growth in reading (+3.69 growth percentiles) than students of alternate pathways teachers. When differences in classroom FRL and ELL composition were adjusted for, this difference shrank to 3.64. When differences in school performance rating were adjusted, the estimated difference shrank to 2.69. This difference was on the margin of statistical significance (significant at p<.10, but not significant at p<.05).

There were no significant differences in student growth in writing or math between university and alternative pathways.

3.3b. First Year Teachers

Students of university-prepared first year teachers demonstrated higher growth in reading (4.51 growth percentiles) than students of alternative pathways. When differences in classroom composition and school performance were adjusted for, the estimated difference shrank to 2.38 percentiles. Because of the small number of teachers involved (29 university, 26 alternative), these differences were not statistically significant.

Tables 3.1 to 3.4 show the HLM coefficients for these analyses comparing university-based and alternative channel teachers, and those of first-year teachers only. In each case, it is important to note the significant and not trivial school effects that appear in the “Stage 3 Analysis” columns. These are indicative of the impact of joining a particular school, and we hypothesize that these effects are a proxy for some combination of school climate, leadership, impact of teacher peers and induction, resources, and cumulative impact of student socioeconomic disadvantages. Table 3.1. READING COMPARISON – Hierarchical Regression Coefficients

Stage 1 Analysis Stage 2 Analysis Stage 3 Analysis Level 1 Intercept 49.05 48.03 48.18 Home Language Spanish 2.51* 2.36* Student SES 1.50* 1.30* Level 2 Alternative Pathway -3.69* -3.64* -2.69a Average SES of classroom 5.97** Percent Spanish speakers 8.90** Level 3 Overall School Perf 0.15* Secondary school -1.12 a p<.10 Unexplained Variance: Among students 747.68 745.93 745.93 Among teachers 20.59 18.50 14.99 Among schools 45.96 46.08 40.01

Page 110: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

19

Table 3.2. WRITING COMPARISON – Hierarchical Regression Coefficients Stage 1 Analysis Stage 2 Analysis Stage 3 analysis

Level 1 Intercept 50.72 49.08 48.33 Student SES 0.58 0.40 Home Language Spanish 4.19** 4.10** Level 2 Alternative Pathway -2.31 -2.92a -1.89 Average SES of class 7.05** Proportion of Spanish Speakers 9.24*

Level 3 Overall School Performance 0.08

Secondary school 0.77 a significant at p<.10 Unexplained Variance: Among students 722.64 719.47 719.51 Among teachers 50.27 47.26 37.21 Among schools 15.99 17.47 22.56 Table 3.3. MATH COMPARISON – Hierarchical Regression Coefficients

Stage 1 Analysis Stage 2 Analysis Stage 3 Analysis Level 1 Intercept 50.79 50.09 51.17 Home Language Spanish 1.68* 1.46a Student SES 0.12 -0.01 Level 2 Alternative Pathway -0.58 -0.77 -0.50 Class average SES 8.38** % Spanish speakers 14.29** Level 3 Overall School Performance 0.23** Secondary school -3.31 Unexplained Variance: Among students 776.98 776.56 776.32 Among teachers 47.00 46.27 41.84 Among schools 77.49 77.07 55.05

Page 111: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

20

Table 3.4. FIRST YEAR TEACHER COMPARISON READING– Hierarchical Regression Coefficients Stage 1 Analysis Stage 2 Analysis Stage 3 Analysis

Level 1 Intercept 46.03 44.70 45.30 Home Language Spanish 2.87 Student SES 3.96** Level 2 Alternative Pathway -4.51 -3.58 -2.38 Average SES of classroom 3.90**

Percent Spanish speakers 1.05

Overall School Perf 0.11 Secondary school -3.04

Page 112: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

21

4. CONCLUSIONS and IMPLICATIONS (for PHASE I REPORT) About DPS Human Resource Data Bases

1. Data entry and practices used to set up and manage paper HR files for teachers hired in DPS through the 2008 fall hiring cycle contributed to missing or inconsistent data in paper files. We were not able to develop a comprehensive data set of all newly hired novice teachers within the PPT channels. However, subsequent to data collection for this phase of the Channel Project was completed, the district has implemented a process to collect key data during the hiring cycle.

2. Academic background variables (e.g., teacher’s major, GPA, or UG institution) were not used to develop a descriptive portrait of novice teachers because data in HR files was not entered using systematic, standardized rules and criteria. If features of new teacher’s academic background are important data points for DPS, DPS should work with universities and CDE to develop standardized criteria that are consistent with institutional reporting requirements for universities. The district may also wish to work with universities to develop standardized “selectivity” ratings for universities/colleges where their teachers complete undergraduate preparation.

3. We have learned a great deal through the conduct of this Channel Project regarding processes that ensure data verification, both in terms of correctly matching teacher with preparation channel as well as teacher with students. The partnership ensured accuracy of data because both the district and its partners have a stake in the analyses.

About Baseline Portrait of Newly-Hired Beginning Teachers in DPS

4. The baseline portrait is shaped by district policies that were in place through the fall 2008 hiring cycle. In this sense, the portrait presented is a reasonable snapshot of newly hired novices in the district prior to implementation of many district reforms in recruitment, hiring, and placement practices. Novices in this study comprise teachers with 0-4 years of teaching experience during the 2008-09 academic year.

5. In the 2008-2009 academic year, for the study sample, approximately 2/3 of newly-hired novice teachers were prepared in university-based channels; 1/3 of teachers were prepared in alternative channels. Those proportions may change as DPS expands/modifies efforts with alternative channels.

6. In the 2008-2009 academic year, the newly-hired, novice teachers were predominantly white. Given DPS commitment to diversity its teaching force, PPT partners may choose to examine more closely recruitment and/or retention practices within those channels that have a higher percentage of non-white teachers. Starting in the 2009 hiring year, with revised HR practices, DPS may be better able to track the percentage of new hires who are non-white. DPS may also seek to work with the Colorado Department of Higher Education, which produces annual enrollment reports for teacher education programs that includes demographic data. This may be a mechanism to identify those teacher prep programs with highest percentages of non-white candidates and direct early

Page 113: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

22

recruiting efforts there. Additionally, many Schools of Education have director-level positions that support recruitment and retention efforts within the unit or campus that may be an underutilized resource for recruiting diverse teachers.

7. Only a small percentage of newly hired teachers in this sample (18%) were fully ELA-qualified, but we also point out the fact that DPS has done a significant amount of work in raising this percentage since the year of this study’s data. Also, we note that there is seems to be a positive correlation of English-language learner status with growth (see Tables 3.1 through 3.4 above). Since we see this across all channels and schools (as sorted by School Performance Frameworks), it is likely that this is due to district-wide policies and resources supporting ELL students, and is may be independent of individual teachers’ ELA-qualified status.

8. Schools rated as “distinguished” on the DPS SPF hired a very small number of novice teachers, suggesting they are filling their open positions by recruiting experienced teachers from within or outside the school district.

9. In 2008-2009, when comparing the school contexts where teachers prepared in alternative and university-based channels landed, those from alternative channels were more likely to land in schools with lower SPF ratings with higher percentages of students who were designated as English language learners and/or who met requirements for free and reduced lunch (note SPF rating and size of FRL and ELL population are correlated). Teachers from alternative channels were filling positions in what are generally considered to be more difficult teaching contexts.

Performance of University-Based and Alternative Preparation Channels

10. Overall, achievement growth of students who had new teachers (0-4 years experience) in 2008-2009 from university-based and alternative channels was quite similar. Students of university-prepared teachers produced on average 2.69 growth percentiles higher in reading than students of teachers in alternative preparation programs, after controlling for differences in school performance, SES, and home language. This difference was on the margin of statistical significance (significant at p<.10, but not significant at p<.05). In writing and mathematics, there was no statistical difference in the learning of students who had university-based teachers and those who had teachers prepared in alternative channels. These findings are similar to other rigorous research efforts seeking to understand the impact of teacher preparation pathways on student achievement.

11. Analyses comparing average growth within each channel obscure the fact that each channel had both outstanding new teachers, whose students significantly outperformed students in CO who had the same initial score in 2008, as well as new teachers who were very weak. A deeper analysis of the “rock stars” as well as the low performing teachers may be warranted.

12. School context, as indicated by School Performance Framework ratings, explained more variance in student growth in reading and mathematics than differences in teacher

Page 114: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

23

preparation programs and was a statistically significant effect. This may mean that there is a strong peer effect among students. Or, that there are school leadership, working conditions, and/or teacher-to-teacher interactions that shape some teachers’ performances positively or negatively.

13. Median growth for new teachers is below 50 in reading and writing. Scores below 50 suggest that in comparison to students state-wide, students in new teachers’ classrooms are, on balance, losing ground.

14. We found the variance among teacher groups in years 1, 2, and 3 decreased year by year in all channels—and overall performance of students moved more toward the mean, with some higher-performing year one teachers showing lower performance overall, and some lowest-performing year one teachers showing improved student achievement ratings overall. Because the student data in each teacher’s class grouping are cross-sectional and NOT longitudinal, however, it is important to note that this is not a statistical regression to the mean but rather a pattern over time. The patterns indicate that for all traditional channels (alternative routes were still too new, with one having only year-one teachers) teachers may be leaving and/or changing their practices. We hope to work with the district to conduct an analysis of hiring and leaving patterns over time to identify what may be causing these patterns of teacher performance. We hypothesize that this pattern of shrinking variance (with groups getting both better and worse in performance over time) is some combination of leaving the district and changing practices to more closely match those typical of the schools in which new teachers are placed.

Page 115: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

Denver Licensure Pilot Background I October 4, 2011

Page 116: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2 © The New Teacher Project 2011

Discontinuation toward Colorado State Professional Licensure

(For second-year teachers not meeting minimum

expectations)

Recommendation For Colorado State

Professional Licensure (For second-year teachers,

beginning Spring 2012)

The Licensure Pilot positions DPS to align district certification decisions with the underlying premise of the Denver Plan – great people to drive better outcomes.

* Note: At the end of 2010-2011, low-performing candidates were recommended out. Recommendations for professional licensure of second-year teachers will be made, beginning in spring 2012.

Completion of Program

Expectations

Classroom Observations

Student Assessment Data

Principal Recommendation

Assessment of New Teacher Effectiveness

(Based on clear performance criteria)

Multiple Measures

On-track Performance; Monitoring

for Additional Licensure Opportunities

(During the 2012 – 2013 school year)

Year-end Outcomes Second-year Teachers

Performance-based Certification

Page 117: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

3 © The New Teacher Project 2011

The Licensure Pilot also provides a nimble control group for DPS to pilot evaluations that drive high-stakes certification decisions and inform renewal and tenure decisions.

Effective Alt Route Teachers

Making meaningful certification decisions that take student outcomes into account Empowering principals with data to inform responsible renewal decisions Ensuring that teachers who reach the tenure decision through the Licensure Pilot meet the district’s bar for efficacy Providing secondary data points to use alongside other district performance assessments

Data-driven Decision-making

Giving additional comprehensive feedback for nearly every DPS alt route teacher Providing a comprehensive snapshot of the new teacher trajectory Generating data to inform the DPS human capital strategy Informing district and program-based training and intervention supports

Using a TAC-validated model to evaluate observation performance and student outcomes prior to district-wide roll out Developing and testing growth models for teachers who are not covered by CSAP assessments

Model Design and Implementation

Page 118: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

4 © The New Teacher Project 2011

Teachers from all four alternate route programs that operate in DPS are required to participate in the Licensure Pilot.

Teach For America (TFA) placed 180 corps members throughout Colorado in the 2010-2011 school year, including 45 in DPS. Participants attend a national summer institute with training and practice teaching, as well as graduate-level courses and professional development throughout their two-year commitment.

Operated by TNTP in partnership with DPS and launched with funding from a federal Transition to Teaching grant, Denver Teaching Fellows (DTF) recruits, trains, and places fellows in DPS. In the 2010, 29 fellows entered the classroom. Fellows participate in a six-week, hands-on summer training institute and take courses through Metro State College.

Developed by DPS through a Janus Capital Group grant, the Denver Teacher Residency (DTR) places teacher candidates as residents alongside an experienced teacher for a year prior to full-time teaching in DPS. During their residency and first year of teaching, participants receive a graduate degree from the University of Denver. In 2010, 25 residents became first-year teachers of record in DPS.

Metro State College operates the Alternative Licensure Program (ALP), which provides coursework and coaching for alternate route teachers hired and referred by principals in DPS and other districts. In the 2010-2011 school year, 25 ALP teachers began work in DPS.

Page 119: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

5 © The New Teacher Project 2011

The first cohort of teachers only included grades 4 – 10 teachers covered by the Colorado Growth Model. The second cohort that entered Fall 2011 includes non-CGM teachers.

Covered by Colorado Growth Model

# of First-year Teachers

# of Second-year

Teachers Covered 66 47

Not Covered 43 0

Total 157

Subject # of First-year Teachers (entered 2010, eligible for licensure in 2012)

# of Second-year Teachers (entered 2011, eligible for licensure in 2013)

Math 23 13

English/Literacy 10 6

ELA-E 9 5

ELA-S 18 1

Special Education 32 21

Science 19 0

Total 111 46

Page 120: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

6 © The New Teacher Project 2011

To support this work, we assembled a Technical Advisory Committee to weigh in on our certification model, including use of the Colorado Growth Model as one of several measures to inform decision-making.

Dan Goldhaber University of Washington

Robert Reichardt University of Colorado

Denver

Susanna Loeb Stanford University

Phil Gonring Education First

Connie Casson Denver Public Schools

John Tyler Brown University

Page 121: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

7 © The New Teacher Project 2011

In May 2011, the TAC examined questions about the use of multiple measures, including observations and student growth, for evaluation.

Calculation of a Summative Observation Score and Cut Points • How should indicator-level ratings from multiple observations using the new DPS

Framework for Effective Teaching be combined into a summative score? • What should be the cut points for observation performance, based on the DPS Framework for

Effective Teaching, for Licensure Pilot teachers? Categorization of Performance by Student Growth Outcomes

• What does historical DPS teacher effectiveness data tell us about the similarities and differences between ratings derived through the Colorado Growth Model and a more traditional value-added model?

• How should teacher-level growth data be used to set categories and cut points for performance?

• What are the right comparison groups for evaluating new alternate route teachers based on Colorado Growth Model data?

Overlay of Multiple Measures for Teacher Evaluation • Should the level of confidence in an individual performance component be weighted in the

calculation of an overall teacher evaluation score? • What is the model the Licensure Pilot should apply to make certification decisions, including

the weighting of observation performance category with student outcome category?

Page 122: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

8 © The New Teacher Project 2011

The TAC recommended a performance bar for second-year teachers: To receive professional licensure, each teacher needs to (1) meet the bar for observation ratings and student outcomes, (2) attain principal recommendation, and (3) complete all program requirements.

Perf

orm

ance

on

the

Fra

mew

ork

Performance Standards for Licensure – Observations and Student Outcomes

* Student growth outcomes will be calculated from median growth percentiles. The cut points and categories will be defined by the TAC based on analysis of how alternate route teachers perform relative to all teachers.

Performance category based on median growth percentiles relative to all teachers*

0 – 20% of DPS teachers 21-79% of DPS teachers 80 - 100% of DPS teachers

Average of 2.99 or

less on any expectation

Not on track On track On track

Average between 3.0 and 4.99 on 4

or more expectations

On track On track Certify

Average of 5.0 or more on 5 or more

expectations

On track Certify Certify

Page 123: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

9 © The New Teacher Project 2011

2011 – 2012 Timeline

September 2011 Observations began for first and second-year teachers

Late Fall 2011 Student growth rating reported to second-year teachers

March 2012 TAC recommends model for first-year teachers not covered by CGM

April 2012 First-year teachers recommended for renewal/non-renewal based on performance

May 2012 Second-year teachers that meet performance bar recommended for professional licensure

Fall 2012 Third-year teachers that meet criteria (based on an additional year of student data) recommended for licensure

Page 124: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

10 © The New Teacher Project 2011

For more information about new teacher effectiveness, please visit:

www.tntp.org

Page 125: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

New Teacher Effectiveness in Denver: Lessons Learned Certified for Excellence: Denver Licensure Initiative September 13, 2012

Page 126: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

2 © TNTP 2012

Discontinuation toward Colorado State Professional Licensure

(For second-year teachers not meeting minimum

expectations)

Recommendation For Colorado State

Professional Licensure (For second-year teachers,

beginning Spring 2012)

In 2010, Denver Public Schools, in partnership with TNTP, launched an evaluation system to base licensure decisions for alternate route teachers on their classroom performance.

* Note: At the end of 2010-2011, low-performing first-year teachers were recommended out. Recommendations for professional licensure of second-year teachers were made, beginning in spring 2012. Teachers can earn professional license in their second or third year of teaching.

Completion of Preparation

Program Requirements

Classroom Observations

Student Growth Data

Principal Recommendation

Assessment of New Teacher Effectiveness

(Based on clear performance criteria)

Multiple Measures

On-track Performance; Monitoring

for Additional Licensure Opportunities (During the third year of teaching)

Year-end Outcomes, Second-year Teachers Performance-based Certification – Certified for Excellence: Denver Licensure Initiative

Page 127: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

3 © TNTP 2012

DPS’ Licensure Initiative included more than 150 teachers from four alternative preparation programs.

109 First-year teachers Eligible for licensure in 2013 or 2014

44 Second-year teachers Eligible for licensure in 2012 or 2013

Year-one Implementation: Only included teachers grades 4 – 10 covered by Colorado Growth Model, which measured CSAP math and reading progress Year-two Implementation: Expansion to include most grades 3 – 10 teachers, including science and elementary bilingual

Teachers in Certified for Excellence: Denver Licensure Initiative (2011 – 2012)

Page 128: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

4 © TNTP 2012

In the 2011 – 2012 school year, alternate route teachers received written and in-person feedback from four supplemental observations.

• TNTP’s Field Observers observed teachers in their subject area of expertise, using DPS’ Framework for Effective Teaching

• After each observation, teachers received a written report with ratings and evidence for each of the Framework’s 21 indicators

• Observers also conducted an in-person reflective feedback conversation

Page 129: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

5 © TNTP 2012

Denver’s Licensure Initiative generated valuable lessons about new teacher performance with implications to talent management.

New teachers’ growth trajectory is flat New teacher development should focus first on the essential skills Many principals struggle to make responsible, data-driven renewal decisions

1

2

3

Headlines from Denver’s Licensure Initiative

Page 130: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

6 © TNTP 2012

New teachers’ growth trajectory is flat

Page 131: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

7 © TNTP 2012

In 2011 – 2012, most new alternate route teachers had average Approaching (3.00 – 4.99) performance in their final three observations.

5.4%

38.4% 34% 20%

2% 0% 1%

34% 42% 22%

1% 0% 0% 18%

56%

25%

0% 1% 1% 7%

51% 39%

2% 0% 0.0%

20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

1-1.99 2-2.99 3-3.99 4-4.99 5-5.99 6-6.99Summative Observation Score

Performance Distribution by Observation - First-year Teachers Average Indicator Rating

Observation 1 Observation 2 Observation 3 Observation 4

2% 14%

48% 34%

2% 0% 0% 5%

50% 45%

0% 0% 0% 5%

34% 48%

14% 0% 0% 0%

30% 48%

23% 0%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

1-1.99 2-2.99 3-3.99 4-4.99 5-5.99 6-6.99Observation

Performance Distribution by Observation - Second-year Teachers Average Indicator Rating

Observation 1 Observation 2 Observation 3 Observation 4

Sample Size: First-year=109 teacher, Second-year=44 teachers

Page 132: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

8 © TNTP 2012

At most, both first and second-year teachers grew only moderately.`

19% 16% 17%

32%

38%

16%

27%

36%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

First-year Second-year

Perc

ent o

f Tea

cher

s

Year long Growth in Classroom Observations (2011 – 2012) Average Growth in Points Per Indicator

Negative (growth<0) Zero to Minimal (growth: 0-0.5) Moderate (growth 0.51-1.0) High (growth>1)

Sample Size: First-year teachers =102, Second-year teachers = 44

First-year

Overall Indicator Average

3.53 Second-year

Overall Indicator Average

4.02

Overall Indicator Growth

0.61 Average Indicator Growth

0.79

Page 133: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

9 © TNTP 2012

New teacher development should focus first on the essential skills

Page 134: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

10 © TNTP 2012

While first-year teachers’ execution of basic skills improved, there was still a gap between current and effective performance.

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1 2 3 4

Aver

age

Expe

ctat

ion

Rat

ing

Observation Number

First-year Teacher Average Performance Trajectory

Effective Classroom Management Standards-based Goals High-impact Instructional Moves

N=109 teachers

Page 135: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

11 © TNTP 2012

A similar trend was seen among second-year teachers.

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1 2 3 4

Aver

age

Expe

ctat

ion

Rat

ing

Observation Number

Second-year Teacher Average Performance Trajectory

Effective Classroom Management Standards-based Goals High-impact Instructional Moves

N=44 teachers

Page 136: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

12 © TNTP 2012

Training and support should prioritize the essential skills first to ensure that new teachers master basic instructional levers.

Implications for New Teacher Training and Support • Prioritize Key Levers: Train principals, peer observers, and coaches to focus new teachers on the essential skills first

• Focus on Practice: To build skills in fundamental levers, PD levers should emphasize practice, immediate feedback, and more practice

• Communicate High Expectations: While new teachers may not be Effective overall, communicate that they should be proficient in the key levers

Page 137: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

13 © TNTP 2012

Many principals struggle to make responsible, data-driven renewal decisions

Page 138: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

14 © TNTP 2012

Though 24% of first-year teachers did not meet the minimum bar of overall Approaching observation performance, fewer than 10% received non-renewal from principals.

End-of-year Status

Total (N = 109 teachers)

Received contract renewal

Did not receive contract renewal

Resigned at end of year

Met performance bar

83 82 1 0

Did not meet performance bar

26 19 6 1

End-of-year Performance Standing and Decision Outcomes: First-year Teachers (2011 – 2012)

* Additionally, three teachers with overall Not Meeting observation performance were asked to resign prior to completion of the final three observations.

Among 11 teachers whose performance ranked in the bottom 10% of first-year teachers, six received contract renewal from their principals.

Page 139: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

15 © TNTP 2012

In making renewal decisions, principals provided other reasons than classroom performance.

“He made huge gains for our gifted students in the [trivia] challenge…” Principal of teacher whose students progressed, on average, less than 3 months in reading between August and March “I trust the principal to make the right decision…” Instructional superintendent regarding a teacher in the bottom 10% “The observer…has a sour, negative presence every time I have seen her and her ratings reflect that countenance.” Principal of the lowest performing first-year teacher

Leaders’ Rationale for Renewal of Lowest Ranked New Teachers

Principals also cited unique class composition, special education placement, insufficient support, and plans to increase coaching during the next year as factors warranting contract renewal.

Page 140: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

16 © TNTP 2012

Some principals need additional guidance to proactively manage new teacher performance.

Critical Actions for Principals’ Managers

• Common Performance Bar: Norm principals around a minimum expectation for first-year teacher performance

• Frequent Communication: Ensure principals communicate and revisit clear, high expectations with teachers early and often

• Performance Messages: Monitor the extent to which principals accurately communicate strengths and growth areas to teachers

• Decision Quality: Develop clearer guidance for renewal decision-making (i.e., how to weigh student learning with other factors)

Page 141: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

17 © TNTP 2012

Appendix: Outcomes for First-year Teachers

Page 142: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

18 © TNTP 2012

To be on track for future certification, each first-year teacher needed to (1) score overall Approaching average (≥3.0) or higher on 7 of the 8 Framework expectations and (2) receive recommendations from her principal and preparation program.

Not Meeting performance (i.e., average less than 2.99 on 6 or more Framework expectations

Not on track

Overall Approaching performance (i.e., average of 3.0 or higher on 7 of the 8 Framework expectations)

On track

Principal Evaluation o Was the candidate renewed or

non-renewed without cause? Program Completion

o Did the participant meet alternate route program’s requirements for the past year?

Observation Screen (Final Three Licensure Pilot Observations)

1

2

3

Principals own decisions to renew probationary teachers’ contracts. In cases in which teachers did not meet minimum observation performance criteria, with DPS’ Human Resources Department, we presented the data and recommended non-renewal.

Page 143: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

19 © TNTP 2012

About 75% of first-year teachers met the bar for minimum observation performance of Approaching or higher.

Source: TNTP observations N = 111 first-year teachers

In March, in consultation with DPS, we changed the method to calculate averages for each expectation. Teachers’ lowest rating for each expectation across the final three observations was not included in the summative average. (For example, if a teacher received a 1.2, 2.4, and 2.9 for 21st Century Skills, the 1.2 was not included.)

1 1 2 6

3 15

27

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Teachers with ‘X’ Expectations with 3.0 Average or Higher Average of Highest of Final 3 Observations (2011 – 2012)

Number of Expectations at or above 3.0

Num

ber o

f Tea

cher

s

Page 144: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

20 © TNTP 2012

Appendix: Outcomes for Second-year Teachers

Page 145: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

21 © TNTP 2012

To receive early professional licensure, second-year teachers needed to (1) meet the bar for observations and student outcomes, (2) receive principal recommendation, and (3) complete all preparation program requirements.

2011 – 2012 Performance Criteria for Licensure – Observations and Student Outcomes

* Student growth outcomes were calculated from median growth percentiles Absolute criteria for each of the three categories are based on approximate MGP ranges for teachers in these categories: bottom 20%, 1 – 79%, and top 20% of all DPS teachers.

Observation Performance

Student Growth

Low Growth Median growth percentile

less than 35%

Typical Growth Median growth percentile

between 35 and 65%

High Growth Median growth percentile

greater than 65%

Not Meeting averages (less than 3.0) on any

of the 8 Framework expectations

Not on track On track On track

Approaching average (≥ 3.0 ) or higher on

all Framework expectations

On track On track Certify

Effective average (≥ 5.0 ) or more on 5 or

more of 8 expectations

On track Certify Certify

Page 146: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

22 © TNTP 2012

Of the teachers who received professional certification, most had overall Effective observation performance and average student growth.

Spring 2012 Licensure Outcomes – Second-year Teachers

Observation Performance

Student Growth

Low Growth Median growth percentile

less than 35%

Typical Growth Median growth percentile

between 35 and 65%

High Growth Median growth percentile

greater than 65%

Not Meeting averages (less than 3.0) on any

of the 8 Framework expectations

0 teachers 5 teachers 0 teachers

Approaching average (≥ 3.0 ) or higher on

all Framework expectations

5 teachers 16 teachers 3 teachers

Effective average (≥ 5.0 ) or more on 5 or

more of 8 expectations

0 teachers 7 teachers 0 teachers

N = 36 second-year teachers * The chart does not include eight teachers with insufficient sample size to calculate a median growth percentile; two of the eight received certification based on overall Effective observation performance.

Page 147: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

23 © TNTP 2012

Appendix: Performance by Preparation Program

Page 148: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

24 © TNTP 2012

Based on the final three observations, first-year DTR and second-year ALP-SED teachers outperformed peers in their cohorts.

2011 – 2012 Average Observation Performance by Alternate Route Program

Cohort Final Three Observations Growth Number of Teachers

ALP First-year 3.37 0.88 8 Second-year 4.27 0.30 1

ALP-SED First-year 3.61 0.72 10 Second-year 4.35 0.92 9

DTF First-year 3.65 0.83 23 Second-year 4.21 1.06 9

DTR First-year 3.81 0.41 12 Second-year 3.79 0.15 5

TFA First-year 3.57 0.58 55 Second-year 4.09 0.67 21

Page 149: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

25 © TNTP 2012

Compared to other programs, a higher share of both first and second-year Fellows had high growth – and they also grew the most.

Sample Size: First-year teachers =27, Second-year teachers = 16

Program

Number of teachers with high growth

% of Teachers within high-growth

group

% of teachers

overall in DLI

Average growth of these high-

growth teachers

First-year teachers with high growth

DTF 9 33% 21% 1.49 DTR 2 7% 11% 1.05 TFA 14 52% 53% 1.39 ALP 2 7% 8% 1.25

ALP-SED 0 0% 7% N/A Other 0 0% 1% N/A

Second-year

teachers with high growth

DTF 6 38% 20% 1.78 DTR 1 6% 11% 1.45 TFA 5 31% 48% 1.73 ALP 0 0% 2% N/A

ALP-SED 4 25% 18% 1.49 Other 0 0% 0% N/A

Page 150: BoardDocs - School Board Management Software Solution...Alternative Licensure Program (ALPs at Metro) Others 2. DPS will recommend candidates who have completed internal preparation

26 © TNTP 2012

For more information on human capital systems and new teacher effectiveness, go to www.tntp.org.