UEA Evaluation Organizing Project August 8, 2013 Insert EOP logo.
-
Upload
coleen-welch -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of UEA Evaluation Organizing Project August 8, 2013 Insert EOP logo.
Welcome
• Thank you!
• Webinar protocol
Please mute phone; ask any questions through Q&A section online
If you have technical questions start a “private chat” with “host” Paul Chadwick
Use “chat box” for community discussions
Agenda
• Educators Taking the Lead
• Roles and expectations
• Evaluation components District observation tools
• Timeline
• Communication
• Policies affecting evaluation
Roles and Expectations
• Evaluation Organizing Project (EOP) Workgroup
• State Evaluation Experts
• UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts
• UniServ “Dream Teams”
• NEA
EOP Workgroup
• Who?UniServ Directors, local presidents, UEA staff
• What?Meet twice a month to identify needs and develop resources to support UEA and UniServ work on the Evaluation Organizing Project
Assess and adjust work based on progress and needs in UniServs
State Evaluation Experts
• Who?Signe Balluf (Davis)Gay Beck (Alpine)Dessie Olsen (Salt Lake)
• What?Design and deliver training to UniServ Evaluation Experts and Dream Teams The Utah Effective Teaching Standards and
engaging in reflective practice Student Learning Objectives and improving
student performance
UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts
• Who?Highly skilled classroom teachers identified by UniServs and locals
• What? Receive in-depth training on Utah evaluation
framework and evaluation issues
Work with UniServ/local to support evaluation organizing efforts
UniServ “Dream Teams”
• Who?UniServ Directors, local presidents and vice presidents, Board members, membership chairs, etc.
• What?Design and implement an organizing plan to support current members and grow membership by using evaluation-related resources developed by the EOP Workgroup and the knowledge of UniServ evaluation experts
NEA
• Who?
Bev Johnson and Sara Gjerdrum
• What?
Work with UniServ and local leaders to facilitate project
Required Evaluation ComponentsDistricts must include the following minimum criteria in their evaluation system (although they can also choose to include other criteria beyond those listed)
Teachers:
• Observations of instructional quality
• Evidence of student growth
• Parent and student input
Administrators:
• Observations of leadership quality
• Evidence of student growth
• Parent, student and employee input
• Effectiveness of evaluating employee performance
District Observation Tools for 2013-14
Public Educator Evaluation Requirements (PEER) Advisory CommitteeDistrict Evaluation Plan Review: August 2, 2013
DistrictApproval Status
NC=Non-Compliant C=CompliantCC=Compliant w/comments
CommentsUSOE Model
Observation Tool
Teacher Leader
Alpine C X X
Beaver C X X
Box Elder C X X
Cache C X X
Canyons C X
Carbon C X X
Daggett C X X
Davis C Creating their own
Duchesne C X
Emery C X X
Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)
District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader
Garfield C X X
Grand C Creating their own
Granite C *5 year plan Creating their own
Iron C X X
Jordan C X
Juab C X X
Kane C X X
Logan CPiloting 2 systems
In 2013-2014
Millard C *5 year plan X X
Morgan C X X
Murray C X X
Nebo C X X
North Sanpete C X X
Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)
District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader
North Summit C X X
Ogden C Creating their own
Park City C Creating their own
Piute C X X
Provo C X X
Rich C X X
Salt Lake C X
San Juan C X X
Sevier C X X
South Sanpete C X
South Summit C X X
Tintic C X X
Tooele C X X
Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)
District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader
Uintah C X
USDB C X
Wasatch C X X
Washington C Creating their own
Wayne C X X
Weber C X
2013 – 2014 Observation Tool Participants
• 12 pilot districts (remaining from the total of 16 pilot districts in 2012‐2013)
• 23 new adopting districts
• 29 districts adopting the teaching observation tool
• 36 districts adopting the leadership observation tool
• 6 districts developing different models (Davis, Grand, Granite, Ogden, Park City, USDB, Washington)
Timeline
• Save the Date!September 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.
Training on the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and gathering evidence to support evaluation Held at the UEA Building
Details about hotel/mileage, hours and complete agenda will be sent in the next few weeks
Timeline (cont.)
• Second training on the standards and observation tool is tentatively scheduled for November
• Training on student growth and student learning objectives (SLOs) is scheduled for January Some trainings may occur regionally rather
than at UEA
Timeline (cont.)
• UEA Convention October 17, 2013 Evaluation-related professional
development workshops¨ What Teachers Can Do to Take Charge
of Their Own Professionalism
¨ Making the New Utah Effective Teaching Standards Work for You (NEA Academy)
Communication
• Back to school email message and video
• “Welcome Back” letter
• EOP Meeting Summary
• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting the Educators Taking the Lead project
• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting one or two teaching standards
Communication (cont.)
• eNewsletter articles on the standards
September Standard 9: Leadership & CollaborationStandard 10: Professional & Ethical Standards
October Standard 6: Instructional Planning
November Standard 7: Instructional Strategies
December None
January Standard 1: Learning DevelopmentStandard 2: Learning Differences
February Standard 3: Learner & Learning Environments
March Standard 8: Reflection & Continuous Growth
April Standard 4: Content KnowledgeStandard 5: Assessment
Computer Adaptive Testing
• Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) Replaces current CRTs
Aligned to the new Utah Core Curriculum
Assesses ELA, Math, Science grades 3-12
Summative, interim and formative assessments available
Computer Adaptive Testing (cont.)
• Implementation Fall 2013: Formative assessments available
¨ Replaces UTIPS but UTIPS available during transition
Spring 2014: Summative assessments begin¨ Results not available until July 2014
Fall 2014: Interim assessments available
Spring 2015: Summative assessments continue¨ Results available immediately
A professional development plan for educators about the new assessment system is included in the implementation process but has not yet been developed
• SAGE details available at http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System.aspx
School Grading• Utah Comprehensive Accountability System
(UCAS) Resulted from SB 59 in 2011 legislative session
¨ UEA opposed SB 59 but once it passed participated in a workgroup with USSA, USBA, PTA, USOE and districts to help design UCAS
Replaced UPASS as school accountability system
Provides school level assessment and accountability information to the public
First reports published in 2012 (no letter grades assigned)
Adopted as Utah’s federal accountability system
School Grading (cont.)
• SB 271 3S School Grading Amendments Passed 2013 Legislature
¨ UEA opposed SB 271 3S during legislative session and asked Governor to veto the bill when it passed the legislature
Creates a second, separate accountability system¨ UCAS will report school performance for federal
requirements and SB 271 3S will report school performance for state requirements
School grades expected to published Sept 1, 2013
School Grading (cont.)
UCAS
Student growth is measured along a continuum and counts for every student:
• Low growth = low points
• High growth = high points
Requires a fixed standard to measure “sufficient growth”, currently set at the 40th percentile:
• Students below 40th percentile = zero points
• All students above 40th percentile = same points
SB 271 3S
School Grading (cont.)
• Currently, it is expected that both UCAS and SB271 3S school performance reports will be calculated and published separately on the USOE website on Sept 1, 2013
• The State Board of Education has indicated that school grades will only be published for SB 271 3S (as required by law)