Developing Effective Teacher Evaluations

Christina LinderDirector, Certification and Professional Standards

http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/

Timeline for Evaluation

Afte

r Jun

e 30

, 201

2, a

ll di

stric

ts a

nd p

ublic

cha

rter s

choo

ls m

ust a

dopt

a

polic

y to

incl

ude

stud

ent a

chie

vem

ent d

ata

as p

art o

f the

ir ev

alua

tion

mod

els

for s

uper

inte

nden

ts, a

ssis

tant

sup

erin

tend

ents

, dire

ctor

s,

prin

cipa

ls, o

ther

dis

trict

adm

inis

trativ

e em

ploy

ees

and

certi

ficat

ed

empl

oyee

s on

Cat

egor

y A

, B a

nd g

rand

fath

ered

con

tinui

ng c

ontra

cts

eval

uatio

ns.

Febr

uary

, 201

3 an

d ev

ery

Febr

uary

follo

win

g, th

e fir

st h

alf a

teac

hers

eval

uatio

n is

due

. Th

is h

alf o

f a te

ache

rs e

valu

atio

n is

bas

ed o

n th

e

Cha

rlotte

Dan

iels

on F

ram

ewor

k an

d in

clud

es th

e pa

rent

/gua

rdia

n in

put

com

pone

nt.

By

the

end

of th

e 20

13 s

choo

l yea

r and

subs

eque

nt y

ears

, the

sec

ond

half

of a

teac

hers

eva

luat

ion

is d

ue.

This

hal

f of a

teac

her’s

eva

luat

ion

is b

ased

on

stud

ent

achi

evem

ent a

s de

term

ined

by

the

loca

l sch

ool

boar

d.

Sta

rting

in M

arch

201

1, d

istri

cts

and

publ

ic c

harte

r sch

ools

mus

t sub

mit

the

resu

lts o

f tea

cher

and

prin

cipa

l eva

luat

ions

thro

ugh

the

ISE

E

Long

itudi

nal D

ata

Sys

tem

mon

thly

upl

oad.

Sep

tem

ber 3

0 20

11, a

ll di

stric

t and

pub

lic c

harte

r sch

ool t

each

er a

nd

prin

cipa

l eva

luat

ion

mod

els

mus

t be

post

ed to

the

SD

E w

ebsi

te a

long

with

the

resu

lts o

f all

teac

her a

nd p

rinci

pal e

valu

atio

ns.

Afte

r Jun

e 30

, 201

2, a

ll di

stric

ts a

nd p

ublic

cha

rter s

choo

ls m

ust a

dopt

a

polic

y to

incl

ude

pare

nt in

put a

s pa

rt of

thei

r eva

luat

ion

mod

els

for p

rinci

pals

,

othe

r sch

ool b

ased

adm

inis

trato

rs a

nd c

ertif

icat

ed e

mpl

oyee

s on

Cat

egor

y

A, B

and

gra

ndfa

ther

ed c

ontin

uing

con

tract

s ev

alua

tions

.

Evaluating for What?Federal Definition of Effective & Highly Effective Teacher

• Effective teacher: students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance.

• Highly effective teacher students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic

year) of student growth.

• At the recommendation of the task force, school districts were required to adopt a teacher evaluation model and policy aligned to the Charlotte Danielson Framework.

• All districts were required to submit their teacher evaluation models and policies to the State Department of Education for review and approval.

• During the 2010-2011 school year, districts were required, at a minimum, to pilot the Danielson Framework in their district with full implementation by the 2011-12 school year.

• Most districts compliant with State Board Rule and engaging in a review of their process prior to

full implementation.

Teacher Evaluations Prior to ARRA and Students Come First

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)– In 2009, Idaho signed on to receive federal funds under

ARRA.– ARRA reporting requirements:

• States must post each district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation model and policy online for the general public to view.

• States must post the results of each teacher and principal evaluation model online.

– Idaho was able to reach a compromise with the US Department of Education to only post the results in aggregate, by district/charter and in cases where five or more principals or five or more teacher are employed rather than individual results.

State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by ARRA

Resulting EvaluationRequirements in 2011

ARRA Compliance – Beginning in March 2011, districts and public charter schools submit the results of teacher and principal evaluations through ISEE Longitudinal Data System.

(Proficient/Non-Proficient publicly reported in aggregate)

ARRA Compliance – By September 30, 2011, all district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation models must be posted to the SDE website along with the results of all teacher and principal evaluations. (Teacher Evaluation Model according to Idaho Code, Administrator Model according to district design)

Student Achievement Component in Evaluations

33-513: Professional Personnel and 33-514: Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation– By July 1, 2012, all superintendent, assistant superintendent,

director, principal, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts, must receive an evaluation in which 50% of the evaluation results are based on objective measures of growth in student achievement as determined by the board of trustees.

State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

• Districts can utilize student achievement data that is individual for each teacher or schoolwide student achievement data similar to that used for the local share of Pay for Performance.

• This student achievement portion of the evaluation is separate from Pay for Performance but districts can use the same models of student achievement for both.

Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component

• Colorado Growth Model using ISAT Test Results• End of Course Assessments• IRI test results• ACT/SAT results• Student graduation rates/dropout rates• Percent of graduates attending postsecondary

education or entering military service

Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component

• What areas of student achievement do you want to see improve?

• What is your highest area of need?

• How can student growth be measured in non-tested subjects and grades?

Please keep in mind that you must resubmit your teacher

evaluation models and policies once you have made these changes. This is in compliance with the ARRA requirements.

Things to Consider

Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations

33-514: Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation– By July 1, 2012, input from the parents and guardians of

students shall be considered as a factor in the evaluation of principals, any other school-based administrative employees and teachers.

– For certificated employees on a Category A, B or grandfathered continuing contract, this input shall be part of the first half of the evaluation that must be completed before February 1 of each year.

State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

• A number of Idaho school districts already utilize parent or guardian input for evaluation purposes, including:– Hansen 

– Vision Charter 

– Filer School District

– Plummer-Worley

– Potlatch

• Formal surveys (e.g. 360 Degree Evaluation Model)• Evidence in a teachers portfolio.

Models for Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations

This requirement can be considered an enhancement to the collection of artifacts in completing a teacher’s normal evaluation.– Domain 4, Professional Responsibilities, Component 4c,

Communicating with families:• Teacher provides frequent information to families, as

appropriate, about the instructional program. Students participate in preparing materials for their families.

• Teacher provides information to families frequently on student progress, with students contributing to the design of the system. Response to family concerns is handled with great professional and cultural sensitivity.

• Teacher’s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful.

Students contribute ideas for projects that could be enhanced by family participation.

Things to Consider

• Will you consider informal communications received throughout the year or only formal surveys?

• Will the survey ask if the parent/guardian has attended parent/teacher conference or if they have spoken to your child’s teacher or administrator? 

• What percentage of your evaluations will be based on the parent/guardian input or will it just be another data collection element used in looking at the overall performance?

Resource: Matt Hyde Parent Involvement Coordinator mhyde@sde.idaho.gov

Things to Consider

Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2012• SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and

public charter schools must adopt a policy to include student achievement data as part of their evaluation models for superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, principals, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.

• SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include parent input as part of their evaluation models for principals, other school based administrators and

certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.

Number of Evaluations and Timeline for Evaluations • Teachers:

– There shall be a minimum of one written evaluation in each of the annual contract years of employment including Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts.

– The second portion shall be completed by the end of the school year and shall comprise at least fifty percent of the total written evaluation and shall be based on objective measure(s) of growth in student achievement.

– The requirement to provide at least one written evaluation does not exclude additional evaluations that

may be performed.

State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First

Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2013

• SCF Compliance – By February, 2013 and every February following, the first half a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teachers evaluation is based on the Charlotte Danielson Framework and includes the parent/guardian input component.

• SCF Compliance – By the end of the 2013 school year and subsequent years, the second half of a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student achievement as determined by the local school board.

Beyond Compliance: Putting It All Together

What other measures could be considered?

While state rule and statute require Value-Added measures, observation, and parental input, there are others to consider:– Content Pedagogy Assessments

– Analysis of Artifacts and Portfolios

– Self-Report of Practice

– Student Evaluation

Using Multiple Measures to Assess Teacher Effectiveness

Fall 2011

•Sample Population- second and third year teachers

•Recruiting districts for a national professional licensure project

Three Measures

1) Content Knowledge for Teaching

2) Observation of Classroom Practice Using the Danielson Framework

3) Artifacts of Teaching

Goals of the Pilot

To understand:

– how professional licensure could be improved through richer measures

– how selected measures function with real teachers in a state system

– the operational issues required to deliver a fully functioning system

Participating States

• Georgia       • Idaho • Kansas        •Maryland

• Missouri        • New Jersey

• Ohio              • Pennsylvania

• Tennessee    • Utah

• Vermont        • West Virginia

• Wyoming

For More Information

A full overview of the project can be accessed at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/

at the SDE Teacher Evaluation website

or

cplinder@sde.idaho.gov

Links to Helpful Resources• NCCTQ Educator Quality Downloadable Resources:• http://www.tqsource.org/• Using the Framework for Teacher Evaluation (Handouts from

BSU Center for School Improvement)• http://csi.boisestate.edu/Improvement/Teacher%20Evaluation

%20Handouts%20-%20All.pdf• Sample Evaluation Models. Powerpoint:• http://scee.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/060/5f4/

Laura_Goe_PowerPoint.pptx• Colorado Growth Model Powerpoint:• http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9ZeUx9Y9nzw

%3D&tabid=116• Initial Findings from MET Including Student Surveys:• http://www.gatesfoundation.org/college-ready-

education/Documents/preliminary-findings-research-paper.pdf

Questions?