Southeastern Wisconsin Teacher Evaluation Consortium

Summer Professional Development Series

August 14th, 2012

Julie Brill i, DirectorTe a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , P ro f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t , a n d

L i c e n s i n gWi s c o n s i n D e p a r t m e n t o f Pu b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n

Overview

• Brief Overview of State Education Initiatives

• Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness• A System’s View• The Evaluation Process and Elements

• What About the Data?

• Are we Ready?

• Questions

Every Child a Graduate College and Career Ready

Standards & Instruction– What and how should kids learn?

Assessments and Data Systems– How do we know if they learned it?

School and Educator Effectiveness– How do we ensure that students

have highly effective teachers and schools?

School Finance Reform– How should we pay for schools?

New accountability system begins & AYP ends (ESEA waiver)

New proficiency benchmarks for WKCE reading & mathematics established

Educator Effectiveness system design continues; Act 166 passed

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

New school report cards first issued (2011-12 accountability reports)

New kindergarten literacy screeneradministered statewide

DPI provides curricular resources for Common Core State Standards implementation

First districts using State Student Information System (SSIS)

Developmental pilot of Educator Effectiveness system

SMARTER Balanced assessment field testing

Educator Effectiveness statewide system pilot

Common Core State Standards fully incorporated into school/district curricula

Smarter Balanced replaces WKCE & WAA-SwD in mathematics and English/Language Arts, including reading and writing

Educator Effectiveness system implemented statewide

ASSETS for ELL assessment in use

All districts on SSIS

Higher graduation requirements

targeted –needs legislation

Timeline for Statewide Initiatives

• Replace broken No Child Left Behind requirements with a new state accountability and support system; 

• Replicate best practices from high-performing schools and provide support to improve the lowest-performing schools;

•Advance a fair and robust educator evaluation system.

How do we ensure kids have highly effective teachers

and schools?

School and Educator Effectiveness

Context of theEducator Effectiveness Work

• State Superintendent’s Educator Effectiveness Design Team – Diverse Membership, National and State Support and Expertise (formed December 2010)

• State legislation (Act 166)– Endorses broad parameters of EE Framework– Districts must implement evaluation systems

consistent with legislation by 2014-2015

• Federal push: (July 2012) ESEA Waiver approval

Educator Effectiveness Timeline

Phases 1 & 2December 2010-

June 2012Framework released

Model developmentDevelopmental Districts

Phase 3July 2012- June

2013Voluntary

PilotsDevelopmen

t workEvaluator

and Educator training System training

Phase 4July 2013- June

2014Pilot

EvaluationModel

revisionsTraining

continuedPilot

expansion to prepare for statewide

implementation

Phase 5July 2014-June

2015Educator

Effectiveness system fully implemented

statewide

Continuous Improvement

Stage 1Developing

Stage 2Piloting

Stage 3Implementing

Guiding Principles of the System

An educator evaluation system must deliver information that:– Guides effective educational practice that is

aligned with student learning and development– Documents evidence of effective educator

practice– Documents evidence of student learning– Informs appropriate professional development– Informs educator preparation programs– Supports a full range of human resource

decisions– Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and

uniform across districts

Definition of Effective Educators

Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school strategy and educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.

Teaching is complex…

The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System acknowledges this:

• Intentional, thoughtful in its design.

• Credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform across districts.

A System of Seamless Transitions

Pre-service

Licensing

LicenseRenewal & the

PDP Process

Evaluation

Synergistic Partnership Between PK-12 and Educator Preparation Programs

Development of and Ongoing Support for Educators

Development of and Ongoing Support for Educators

System Weights

Sales

50% 50%EducatorPractice

StudentGrowth

Standards for Educator Practice

Teacher PracticeInTASC Teaching Standards (2011)

Framework for Teacher Evaluation

Charlotte Danielson’s Domains & Components

Domain 1: Planning and PreparationDomain 2: The Classroom

EnvironmentDomain 3: InstructionDomain 4: Professional

Responsibilities

Principal Practice2008 Interstate School

Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

Framework for Principal EvaluationSubordinate functions

of the ISLLC standards

Educator Effectiveness Measures

15%

15%

15%

2.5%2.5%

50%

PercentPractice measures

District Choice

State Assessment (value-added model)

District Assessment

Student Learning Objectives

School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle)Graduation (High School)

Evaluation Cycles

Orientation

Self-Reflection and Educator Effectiveness

Plan

Evaluation Planning Session

Observations and Evidence

CollectionPre- & Post-Observation Discussions

Rating of Practice

Final Evaluation Conference

Use of Evaluation

Results

OrientationSelf-

Reflection and

Educator Effectivenes

s Plan

Evaluation Planning Session

Observations and

Evidence Collection

Mid-Year Review

Rating of Practice

Final Evaluation Conference

Use of Evaluation

Results

PRINCIPALTEACHER

Teacher Evaluation Cycle

Frequency Duration

1 announced observation 45 minutes or (2) 20-minute observations

1 unannounced observation 45 minutes or (2) 20-minute observations

3-5 informal and unannounced observations (walkthroughs)

At least 5 minutes

Principal Evaluation Cycle

• A minimum of two observations Observations may include principal’s interactions or principal’s activities (leading a team meeting) relevant to the component being assessed

• Two to three informal school visits or walkthroughs.

.

Possible Evidence Sources

• Classroom observation (live and/or videotaped)• Guided teacher reflections or reflection form• Lesson and unit plans• Samples of class assignments, student work

with feedback• Logs of family contacts• Professional development records and

reflections• Student surveys• Evaluation conversations

Teacher Evidence Sources

Possible Evidence Sources• Documents

– School Improvement Plan– Written teacher evaluations– Leadership team agenda

• Observations– Leading faculty meeting– Community, school board presentations

• Surveys– School working conditions/climate

• Discussions with principal– Evaluator and principal interactions about

evidence

Principal Evidence Sources

What are SLOs?

SLOs are collaboratively established goals for growth in student achievement at the classroom level that are:

– Specific and measurable– Aligned to standards and to school improvement

plans/district strategic plans (if applicable)– Based on learning needs as determined by data– Established for individual teachers, teams, or

schools, and for all students or selected subgroups

– Based on rigorous, yet attainable growth goals

Teacher SLOs

SLO Process

Create SLO

Submit SLO for Approval

Not Approved

Approved

Possible Evidence Sources• Many potential sources of SLO evidence:

– End of course exams (with appropriate pre-test/baseline measure of student knowledge)

– High-quality classroom assessments– Performances/Portfolios of student work (when

scored with a rigorous rubric)

• SLO evidence should generally be kept separate from data used to determine areas of student need, in order to avoid “double-counting” of student outcomes– WKCE is not an appropriate SLO evidence source

(measures November-November growth)– Use of benchmark data (MAP, etc.) discouraged, but

could be appropriate in limited circumstances

SLO Evidence

Multiple Performance Categories

Developing: does not meet expectations and requires additional support and directed action

Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed through professional development

Exemplary: expand expertise through professional development and use expertise in leadership

The initial recommendation of the Design Team included three performance categories. The Coordinating Committee met on July 26, 2012, and determined that five rating categories would be part of the Developmental Pilot as opposed to three.

Educator Effectiveness System Matrix

1 2 3 4 5

1 * *

2 *

3

4 *

5 * *

Student Outcomes

Mod

els

of P

ract

ice

• Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.

• Gathering and collecting observation data, student-teacher linkage data, mobility, etc.

• Integrating and managing data longitudinally from a variety of sources

• Accessing and reporting data• Validating for data quality• Supporting stakeholders

Data Systems Issues

• Opportunities for collaboration?

• Common Assessment development?

• Understanding of the EE system?

• Developing leadership skills for supporting this work?

• Formative Assessment?

District Readiness?

Staying Informed and Involved

Visit the DPI Website:http

://www.dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html

The Framework, presentations, FAQs, and draft process manuals can be found posted on the website

Thank You!