wp.vcu.eduwp.vcu.edu/.../sites/3361/2014/05/Policy-Research-Proje… · Web viewPolicy Research...

Policy Research Project32

Policy Research Project

EDLP 704

Virginia Commonwealth University

Michael Massa

Section 1: Description of Policy

Summary

The policy that this report is based on is the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. The policy was approved by the Virginia Board of Education on April 28, 2011 and became effective July 1, 2012.

The policy is to create a universal teacher evaluation system throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia that assesses the effectiveness of classroom teachers, identifies areas the teachers may need growth, creates more specific professional development and improves instruction school wide. The policy is also in place to ensure that teacher feedback is given using quality and valid measures by administrators. The policy ensures that teachers will be observed for effectiveness individually. According to the policy, the authors also wanted a policy that would provide a valid, objective rating scale to recognize outstanding teachers separately from proficient teachers. The policy is also meant to be used to help give data to develop meaningful professional development, allow novice teachers additional feedback and to address inadequate performance.

The ultimate purpose of the policy is to create guidelines for performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers and administrators and that all school systems in the Commonwealth of Virginia establish procedures for evaluating teachers and administrators that address academic progress and growth. (Figure 1) School systems across the Commonwealth of Virginia will use the standards to create tools and evaluation systems that are to meet the criteria of the guidelines as approved by the Board of Education.

Figure 1: Performance Standards

STANDARD

DESCRIPTION

Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge

The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of student by providing relevant learning experiences.

Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning

The teacher plans using the Virginia Standards of Learning, the schools curriculum, effective

Strategies, resources, and data to meet the needs of all students.

Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery

The teacher effectively engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional strategies in order to meet individual learning needs.

Performance Standard 4: Assessment of and for Student Learning

The teacher systematically gathers, analyzes, and uses all relevant data to measure student

academic progress, guide instructional content and delivery methods, and provide timely

feedback to both students and parents throughout the school year.

Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment

The teacher uses resources, routines, and procedures to provide a respectful, positive, safe, student-centered environment that is conductive to learning.

Performance Standard 6: Professionalism

The teacher maintains a commitment to professional ethics, communicates effectively, and takes responsibility for and participates in professional growth that results in enhanced student learning.

Performance Standard 7: Student Academic Progress

The work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress.

Policy Type

The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers is an example of a regulatory policy. The policy formalizes teacher evaluation and indicator practices for all school divisions in the Commonwealth of Virginia as mandated by the Code of Virginia, and the Virginia Board of Education. This policy is enforced through the law and gives specific rules to each school board. The policy also gives examples of different data collections tools that school systems may want to use such as student surveys, formal observation tools, portfolios and informal walkthrough data. These examples are not mandated though implementation of an evaluation system and indicators that align with the seven standards are mandated.

The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria of Teachers could also be an example of a distributive policy in some hypothetical scenarios. If teacher evaluation indicators were eventually tied to merit pay, the policy would also take on a distributive label as money was being appropriated to a worker based on output and evaluation.

Section 2: Legal Issues relevant to Policy

Constitutional Law

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which is also part of the Bill of Rights may come into question when reviewing the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. The Tenth Amendment stipulates that the powers not delegates to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. Public education in the United States has always been a state sovereignty under the idea of local control. The guidelines approved by the Virginia Board of Education would still fall under the Tenth Amendments description of federalism, however; during data collection it was found that the Commonwealth of Virginia acted out of pressure from the Federal Government and Federal Law.

Federal and State Statutory Law

Article 2, 22.1-295 of the Code of Virginia requires all instructional personnel including principals, assistant principals, are to be evaluated based on students academic growth. The Code of Virginia goes on to state that principals must receive training in evaluating and documenting employee performance. The Code also stipulates school boards will develop procedures for school leaders to evaluate instructional personnel that include student academic progress in addition to other best practices. The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers is the Virginia Department of Educations policy to meet the Code of Virginia.

Board of Education Regulations

Following the Virginia Department of Educations drafting of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers to meet the Code of Virginia, the Virginia Board of Education approved the document as regulatory guidelines to be used for each school board to implement an evaluation policy. The regulations specific the guidelines are standards 1 through 7 (Firgure1) and are the use of common indicators used to denote teacher effectiveness.

Case Law

In Fairfax County School Board v. Michelle M. Faber a Circuit Court case dealing with Fabers allegations that a school board failed to comply with its policy when it denied her the opportunity to challenge the substance of a negative evaluation. The evaluation report had not been given to Faber. Faber was conditionally reappointed and denied a salary step as a result of the report. Faber tried to appeal the substance of the evaluation however; the school board found that teachers were only able to file a grievance over the process and not the substance of an evaluation. The court found that in the Fairfax County School Boards policy language, that Faber could appeal the substance of the evaluation. This court case is an example of how uniform guidelines for an evaluation process could help protect school boards from litigation in that the work force would have clear understanding of the evaluation parameters and the courts would have a better understanding of the universal themes and guidelines set forth by the Virginia Department of Education when dealing with issues in court that derived from the teacher evaluation and indicator process.

In Austin v Board of Education of Howard County the plaintiff was a special education teacher at Mount View school in Howard County, MD during three consecutive school years. The teacher was a non-tenured teacher. In Howard County the School Board evaluates teacher performance through 4 indicators. The indicators are interpersonal skills, planning and preparation, the classroom environment, delivery of instruction, and professional development. The tools used to evaluate teachers are observations, portfolios, peer coaching, cooperative program review, and alternate year evaluation.

The plaintiff, Dr. Austin, received an unsatisfactory review in three of the five categories including planning and preparation, delivery of instruction, and professional responsibilities. The School Board implemented a structured growth plan that was to be aligned with the categories that Dr. Austin was deemed unsatisfactory. The teacher was renewed but the following year the teacher again was found to be unsatisfactory in the previous categories and was put on a second structured growth plan. The principal of the school retired that year and a new principal took over and found Dr. Austin to again be unsatisfactory in all categories and put her on a third structured growth plan. Dr. Austin filed an internal complaint of discrimination. After an investigation, Howard County found there to be no discrimination or harassment. Dr. Austin then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At the same time Dr. Austin was told that she would not be renewed for the next school year. Dr. Austin soon resigned and the principal submitted all documentation to the School Board per their policy. The main function of this case is not to have the judge determine the credibility of the evidence but to merely find if there is an issue for trial. This case, while in Maryland, still illustrates that uniform policy will mitigate some litigation as the policy will be uniform and up for less interpretation over time. This case also shows that while the school documented the issue well, the plaintiff, Dr. Austin, did not. Therefore the case was transferred to the U.S. Circuit Court to determine if there was an issue that merited trial at all.

In Sammarco v. Board of Education of Prince Georges County the plaintiff, Sammarco alleges that she was working in a hostile work environment, retaliation, and discriminatory treatment as the result of her new principal in the school. Mrs. Sammarco alleges that once her new principal arrived, Sammarco began receiving negative performance evaluations. Mrs. Sammarco says that the principal and assistant principals were kinder and gave better evaluations to younger teachers and African American teachers. Sammarco also claimed that her evaluators used false statements in her evaluations. The principal eventually requested Sammarco be terminated with documentation of negative performance evaluations and reprimands from the principal, assistant principals, and the department chair. Ms. Sammarcos case was dismissed at the request of the School Board in court. This case shows the importance of a process that gives teachers feedback with areas of growth and sets up plans to help pinpoint proper staff development. It is also shows that data collection using tools that are reliable and relevant should be used by multiple supervisory teams. In this case Sammarco was given additional professional development and a teacher mentor who also gave negative performance evaluations. The strength of having a detailed performance standard and evaluation helps school systems identify specific staff development for teachers in need and helps mitigate litigation by using a fair and reliable evaluation tool with fidelity (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Using VAMs to evaluate a teacher

Section 3: Research Issues

Theories

The reliability of Value added models, or VAMs, are a theory wherein an evaluation system is designed to evaluate student test score gains from one year to the next to reflect teacher performance. Using VAMs for individual teacher evaluation is based on the belief that measured achievement gains for a specific teachers students reflect that teachers effectiveness (Darling-Hammond, 2012). VAMs rely on statistical controls from past achievement to show student gains of current students. The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers utilizes the theory of VAMs in Standard 7 which states that. the work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic progress (VDOE, 2012).

Another theory in implementing a new teacher evaluations system is having a sophisticated political understanding of how to structure the development and implementation of the process to optimize the support of various stakeholders (Stronge, 1999). This approach is called co-agency, which means that power in the school system when developing a new process is delegated and distributed throughout the organization so that the decision making is a bargaining process to arrive a solutions that satisfy and number of constituencies (Stronge, 1999). The idea behind co-agency development of evaluation policy is that stakeholder participation enhances the ultimate product because it allows the political process to take place before implementation and before people must live and work with the policy design (Stronge, 1999). While this process may not always resolve all opposing arguments, it does give stakeholders and time to present their ideas and promote healthy conflict in creating the policy. Ultimately through this development process, stakeholders may feel that they participated and will have greater buy in regardless if all their needs have not been met. In the case of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, the panel was made up of many different stakeholders.

The theory of action behind supervision and evaluation is that it will improve teachers effectiveness and therefore boost student achievement (Marshall, 2005). In this theory the administrator, supervisor, or colleague observe the teacher giving a lesson. After the teacher gives the lesson there is a post observation conference where the teacher is given commendations and recommendations. The teachers signs off on the document after the meeting. Because the teacher is only seen for a short amount of time, multiple observations from other administrators, department chairs, and colleagues will paint a clearer picture of the teachers strengths and weaknesses through common themes (Marshall, 2005). This is the most commonly used theory for teacher evaluation and is one of the reasons the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers and the Virginia law that preceded it were established. Part of the Guidelines purpose was to emphasize valid and reliable evaluation through data and a way in which exemplary teachers could be noted separately from proficient teachers.

Scholarly Research

In Evaluating Teacher evaluation, the authors discuss Value-added models and discuss that while comparing student achievement data year over year is valid for research, it is not a reliable way to evaluate teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2012). The research cites that class sizes, curriculum materials, instructional time, availability of specialists, and resources for learning can all skew student achievement data (Darling-Hammond, 2012). The authors go on to point out that home and community supports and challenges, student needs, abilities, student health, and attendance can also affect student achievement data (Darling-Hammond, 2012). In addition the authors show data that shows that teacher effectiveness based solely on scores varies widely from year to year and that when researchers used a different assessment model to generate scores, they found that 40% to 55% of them would get noticeably different scores (Darling-Hammond, 2012). The authors conclude that new evaluation approaches should take advantage of research on teacher effectiveness. The authors believe that their research indicates that value-added measures of student achievement tied to individual teachers should not be used for high stakes, individual level decisions, or comparisons across highly dissimilar schools or student populations (Darling-Hammond, 2012). Standards-based evaluations processes similar to that given to teachers by the National Board certification and performance assessments for beginning teachers would translate better to evaluating teachers. These processes could include evidence of student work and learning as well as evidence of teacher practices derived from observations, video tapes, artifacts and student surveys (Darling-Hammond, 2012).

In the article from the Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education James Stronge and Pamela Tucker discuss how emphasizing the political variables of the plan can be just as important as the reform side. In the authors article, The Politics of Teacher Evaluation: A Case Study of New System Design and Implementation, the authors discuss the idea that participation in discussing an evaluation plan and participation in the development of a plan by teacher and administrators is the most critical because they must develop a sense of ownership (Stronge, 1999). Also, the authors discuss that stakeholder collaboration, especially between teacher and administrator, in developing the plan helps maintain trust and mutuality in the evaluation process and in building productive supervisory relationships (Stronge, 1999). The article also gave a case study of a school system going through the process of creating a new evaluation system and the struggles and success that they had during the development. The case study shows the school system using the co-agency strategy of stakeholder engagement and the organization of problems and solutions as stakeholders negotiated the process (Stronge, 1999). In conclusion the article reports how a strong political climate was nurtured in the school system by nurturing systemic compatibility between teacher evaluation and district/school goals, ongoing and effective communication with all stakeholders, organizational commitment to the reform initiative, and teacher administrator collaboration in the development of evaluations goals and processes (Stronge, 1999). This study seems to strongly mirror the policy making framework the council and authors of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers used in writing the policy recommendations.

In the article entitled, Its Time to Rethink Teacher Supervision and Evaluation, the author, Kim Marshall, discusses the inefficient way in which the classic approach to teacher evaluation has little to no impact on student achievement. Examples are given that include an administrator dropping post observation conferences in boxes with notes asking for signatures, a veteran teacher that gets no support because administration feels she doesnt need evaluation as often, and a teacher that is chastised for taking a risk in the classroom (Marshall, 2005). These examples all illustrate what the author believes to be an antiquated and arbitrary method of evaluation (Marshall, 2005). The author focuses on a theory of teacher teams working collaboratively toward common curriculum expectations and using interim assessments to continuously improve teaching and attend to student who are not successful (Marshall, 2005). Marshall claims that this theory of improving students academic progress is the engine that drives higher student achievement, (Marshall, 2005). The author goes on to argue that teacher collaboration is countercultural in most American schools and rarely happens without the support of personnel outside the classroom (Marshall, 2005). In this system the high stakes testing mandated by the states and federal government would act as the impetus for collaboration and the principal would give support and facilitate when needed (Marshall, 2005). The author still concedes a need for teacher evaluation but contends that the process should be less administrator based on instead the teachers should collaboratively self-reflect and report with data (Marshall, 2005).

Section 4: Interview

Purpose

The purpose of the interview was to collect qualitative data from a member of both the planning and implementation team for the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Education Criteria for Teachers. In conducting the interview the group was given first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the teacher evaluation work group as they planned universal evaluations standards and an implementation plan for the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

Description of Procedure

The group took turns asking a series of questions to the interviewee. The group met at the interviewees office in downtown Richmond, Virginia at the Virginia Department of Education headquarters. The group introduced themselves and asked permission to record the interview. The group stuck to the prewritten questions but did as follow up questions when they felt it appropriate. The interview was then transcribed in parts by each group member and coded. Qualitative data from the interview was then divided by themes that the group agreed upon.

Profile of Interviewee

The interviewee is the Director for Standards, Curriculum and Instruction for the Virginia Department of Education. The interviewee is responsible for recording and implementation of the guidelines for the Virginia Department of Education across the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Data by Question

How did this policy come about?

The implementer discussed the Code of Virginia requiring the Board of Education to develop guidelines for evaluation of teachers and for school divisions to implement a teacher evaluation system based on student achievement. The implementer also alluded to federal requirements that would dictate the stream of funding in the future.

What was the purpose of the policy?

The implementer described the purpose of the policy was to provide the school divisions with a framework for teacher evaluation based on best practices according to research and give school divisions guidance on how to create a systematic way of providing accountability. The implementer also noted that there was a pilot program for merit/performance pay in several school divisions that used the guidelines. The implementer names several school divisions as examples.

What is your roll with respect to the policys development?

The implementer stated that he considers his role the facilitator, coordinator, and gofer (with a laugh). The implementer spent time explaining that working within the VDOE is very similar to working in a central office or administrative team. The implementer reported that he is the only staff member responsible for teacher and principal evaluation other than his supervisor. The implementer said that he worked closely with the team that developed the guidelines, presented it to the Board of Education, and worked with consultants that were hired to further develop the guidelines, and facilitated all of the background groups. The implementer named several members of the consulting group and reported that the process with stakeholders lasted about one year.

Who were some of the other stakeholders that worked on this policy?

The implementer named several stakeholder groups consisting of PTSA members, professional association members, superintendents, principals, and consultants. The implementer also said that he discussed details with members of the general assembly at times to let them know how appropriations were being implemented. The implementer also discussed the relatively small number of people (2) working on the implementation on the state level compared to the implementation on the county level and stressed that principals and teachers would be the most important stakeholders in the implementation process.

What were some of the things you planned to do in terms of implementation to the next level outside the VDOE and to the counties?

The implementer talked about the importance of professional development and where the funds would come from for support. The General Assembly provided some funding for staff development. It was reported that the VDOE also partnered with the Office of School Improvement who had federal funds to help supplement funding. The implementer also discussed how the implementation would most likely look different from county to county depending on resources. Fairfax and Highland Counties were used as examples.

What do you feel are some of the strengths of this policy?

The implementer felt that the strength of the policy was that it was based on research and best practices. The implementer also felt that another strength was that the guidelines were started from the ground and individuals from across the state involved and that the process had heavy teacher involvement. The other strengths mentioned by the implementer was that the new guidelines were less burdensome and reduced from 20 standards to 7.

What were some of the ways that you worked to get buy in from teachers that werent on the panel when this policy was being developed?

The implementer reported that the area that was discussed the most was Standard 7 that stipulated that student achievement data would be the basis for a percentage of the teacher evaluation. The pilot of both the guidelines and teacher incentive pay tied to evaluation were specified by the implementer as an example of stakeholder involvement.

Were there any parts in writing this policy that didnt sit well with you?

The implementer discussed Standard 7 as being the most challenging. The implementer discussed how most questions from stakeholders are in reference to Standard 7 but that they should know that if you dont meet Standard 1-6, Standard 7 will not look so good. The implementer also conceded that he worries that the guidelines are not being implemented properly in some school districts.

Now that you have seen the results, how is the policy working?

The implementer said that the policy is working differently in different school divisions. The implementer reiterated that most of the implementation rests on principals shoulders. Observation, the implementer said, is a key time to discuss Standard 7.

In terms of analyzing implementation from school division to school division, is there a universal tool that you send them?

The implementer discussed the fact that at the time they were going through their NCLB waiver and that they had been asked this question by the federal government. The implementer said that school divisions are expected to verify that they are using the summative evaluation rating for all their teachers. The implementer said that it has been stipulated that 40% of the rating be student academic progress. The implementer also said that school divisions are asked to report their summative rating level totals and if they are using the 4 levels that the Board of Education stipulated. The implementer also said that part of the federal regulations that pushed the law in the Commonwealth of Virginia was that, like many states, Virginia took federal money to keep the education system afloat during the Great Recession and that some of these evaluation processes were stipulations that were tied to the money.

Do you adjust the guidelines to meet what the code of Virginia and Federal Guidelines to meet all needs?

The implementer reported that they feel confident that they have met all stipulations both from the federal and state government.

Do you see these guidelines evolving into pay for performance?

The implementer said that there was a recent bill that requiring research and guidelines for career ladders. The implementer believed that the language from the bill revealed that there was some interest in incentive pay or a career ladder system.

Given the number of school divisions that were in the pilot, has there been any follow up just to see if the quality of instruction improved?

The implementer discussed two outside evaluations done and that both evaluations were inconclusive as to whether they policy is impacting student achievement in a one year period. The implementer believes that in a four year period they would be able to begin to see the results of the policy.

Themes and Topics

The themes and topics the group found in the qualitative data gathered from the interview were: Purpose, Stakeholders, Federalism, Compromise, Resources, Proactivity, Implementation, and Merit Pay/Career Ladder.

Purpose

The theme of purpose came up continuously in data. The purpose was the driving force behind the creation of the guidelines and was to meet both stipulations from the Code of Virginia and Federal Guidelines. The purpose was also mentioned in the fact that previous guidelines were antiquated and burdensome as there were twenty in total. The overall purpose seemed to be monitoring student academic progress and identifying needs for growth.

Stakeholders

The emphasis on stakeholder involvement in both creating and implementing the plan were apparent in almost every answer to every question. Being that Dr. James Stronge was on the work group it comes as no surprise that this method was used. The implementer mentioned several times that the key stakeholders both in construction of the policy and implementation would be building level principals and teachers. This was due to the fact that the burden of actual implementation rested at the building level and that ultimately teacher groups and administration would need to feel buy in when creating the guidelines.

Federalism

In our qualitative data federalism continued to be included as a secondary theme when discussing purpose and procedure. The implementer continued to note that the work group was working under the understanding that guidelines were going to be coming from the federal government and that the pressure of federal appropriations was also present.

Compromise

The theme of compromise was a secondary them that came up during discussion of the development process. Due to the nature of the work group, consisting of PTSA members, professional association chairs, superintendents, principals, academic consultants, and teachers, there was discussion of compromise specifically around Standard 7. There was also compromise when discussing the different resources divisions had and the expectation of implementation initially being different based on the size and resources of each division.

Resources

Resources were a prominent theme when discussing implementation. It was reported that monetary resources were required for staff development, and consultants. It was reported by the implementer that members of the General Assembly were briefed and that money was appropriated for staff development from that governing body. In addition resources at the VDOE and the small team of people working on the implementation and follow up research was extremely small.

Proactivity

The theme of proactivity came up when discussing the theme of purpose. The implementer reported that there was pressure to be proactive in implementing, or adhering to, federal guidelines so that the commonwealth would be able to recoup streams of federal money that were tied to evaluation expectations. In addition, there was discussion of pilot programs and stakeholder input to begin to sell the policy and create stakeholder buy in prior to implementation.

Implementation

Implementation was the major theme of the interview and the data collected. The discussion of implementation with the interviewee started with receiving the Code of Virginia and building a from the ground up group of stakeholders to start to devise new standards based on research and best practices, to the final implementation and follow up studies after one year. Implementation was explained step by step. The interviewee was the main implementer of the policy and had extensive knowledge of the process. The implementer acknowledged several time that implementation ultimately rested with the building level administrators and teachers to have buy in and follow the guidelines properly.

Division Discrepancy

Division discrepancy was mentioned often when discussing implementation as a secondary theme. Division discrepancy was noted as a major hurtle in implementation of the guidelines across the entire commonwealth. Fairfax County was mentioned repeatedly as having as many as 132 people working on their evaluation policy while counties such as Highland County may have one person. In addition division discrepancy was also referred to when discussing post implementation results. The implementer reported that there were reports of implementation both positive and negative from county to county inferring that some school systems were struggling with implementation while others were reporting early success.

Merit Pay/Career Ladder

Merit pay and the career ladder came up several times as possible next steps for the guidelines once the policy had become commonplace throughout the Commonwealth. A pilot program had already been initiated at some schools in the Commonwealth that tied teacher evaluation data from Standard 7 to incentive pay. The implementer also reported that a new bill that was currently in the General Assembly was requiring research to be done into developing a career ladder. Other states that have linked either licensure or merit pay to evaluation data that is linked to student academic growth were also briefly mentioned.

Section 5: Conclusions

Analysis of Perspectives

Self Interest Values: Economic/Power

Under the self-interest value of economics and power, most people act and make decisions based on their own economic situation or the economic situation of the group whom they associate with. In regard to the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers; policy is based on the Code of Virginia and federal guidelines that mandate, in part, a tool to ensure more accountability from educators. During the economic downturn when government appropriations were being sent to school systems to keep them economically stable, voters, mostly conservative, began to argue that teachers were held to less accountability then the private sector worker yet had more job security and benefits. One can argue the merits of that argument but that is not the point of this analysis. The point is that legislators heard these voters on both the federal and state level and felt it necessary, in the opinion of the author, to create additional regulations that would mandate that teachers prove their proficiency in the classroom. This may be a direct correlation to certain groups of society feeling that they are not getting equitable compensation for their work as educators and anger that in some states, tenured teachers, and their representatives, have more power to receive benefits and a larger slice of the pie.

Democratic Values: Liberty/Equality

Democratic values play a direct role in the creation of legislation that ultimately mandated the drafting of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. The liberty and individualism are vital to democratic values in the United States. One reason that legislators felt it necessary to generalize and intensify teacher evaluation may be the achievement gap between ethnic and economic groups across the nation. Uniform evaluation guidelines mean that every teacher from downtown Norfolk to Potomac, Virginia will be evaluated the same way and will be given data that can guide professional development and, in theory, better instruction. This outcome, if possible, would satisfy both democratic values of liberty and equality. The value of liberty would be met by knowing that no matter what school or school system you attended in the Commonwealth, your child would receive proper instruction to be able to learn and do whatever they wanted to do when they graduated. The equality piece would be that the same standards were being implemented for every teacher in every school district to help mitigate the assumption, often incorrect, that teachers in at risk schools are apathetic to academic progress.

Success of Implementation

It is impossible to say at this point whether the new teacher evaluation system is a success. The first generation evaluation of the policy has just come back after one year completely inconclusive. There are reports, as expressed by the implementer, that different school systems are reporting different results as to ease of implementation. During the second generation of evaluation of implementation, the VDOE will hopefully be able to find themes or patterns of qualitative data that reflects what is working well and what is hampering the teacher evaluation process. During the third generation of evaluation of policy implementation, the VDOE should be able to understand where additional resources are needed, and what those resources are. In addition, during the third generation the policy should begin to show whether or not student academic achievement is being affected by the teacher evaluation process. The implementer reported that he expected it to take as long as 4 years to begin to see the effects the policy had on student learning. Once the effects are documented the policy makers should be able to determine if adequate support is being given and if the policy is appropriate. So far, in the infant stages of the guidelines, it seems that mobilizing implementation has been a success in that by this time all school systems should be implementing the plan with their teachers on the building level and one year of student performance data should be collected with another to be analyzed in the fall.

Suggestions for Evaluation

One concern from the data that our group uncovered was that there was not a strong evaluation mechanism in place for implementation of the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. The implementer did say that two studies had been conducted during the first year and that both were inconclusive. The evaluation should first determine the goals of the program as listed in the first section of the VDOE guidelines document.

The study should then identify indicators that will be used to measure the goals. Obviously the indicators could be the teacher 4 teacher proficiency indicators but also AYP information and SOL pass rates. The study should then create universal data collection instruments. These instruments should be filled out or collected by the school systems and sent to VDOE. In a world with unlimited resources, it would be nice to randomly audit the data reported to the VDOE to make sure that the tool is valid and that the methodology of the systems collecting their own data is reliable. The VDOE team would then analyze and summarize the data, or this could be done at the system level as the final part of the universal tool. At the VDOE level the team could then look for trends between similar districts and between similar socio-economic groups. The consultants or the work group from the original policy could then get back together to make recommendations and amend the policy as needed. Since this policy relies on annual data, the systematic evaluation of the policy should take at least 3 years. The final evaluation of the policy done by the VDOE would probably need to be outsourced for quality control to one of the Commonwealths academic institutions.

References

Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation: Popular modes of evaluating teacher are fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but the field had identified better approaches..Kappan Magazine,93(6), 8-15.

Marshall, K. (2005). It's time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation.Phi Delta Kappan,86(10), p. 727.

Stronge, J., & Tucker, P. (1999). The politics of teacher evaluation: A case study of new system design and implementation.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,13(4), 339-359.

Virginia Department of Education. (2012). Guidelines for uniform performance standards and evaluation criteria for teachers, http://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching/regulations/

Appendices

A: Document

Virginia Department of Education

P. O. Box 2120

Richmond, Virginia 23218-2120

Guidelines for Uniform Performance

Standards and Evaluation

Criteria for Teachers

Approved by the Virginia Board of Education

on April 28, 2011, to become effective July 1, 2012.*

*The Virginia Board of Education approved the document, Guidelines for Uniform

Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, to become effective on

July 1, 2012; however, school boards and divisions are authorized to implement the

standards prior to July 1, 2012.

Acknowledgements

The Virginia Department of Education expresses appreciation to the Center for Innovative

Technology for their leadership in coordinating the work that led to the revised Guidelines for

Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers. Appreciation also is

extended to the members of the Virginia Teacher Evaluation Work Group for their invaluable

input and support of the project.

Virginia Teacher Evaluation Work Group

Ms. Sherri Arnold, English Teacher, Maggie Walker Governors School for Government and

International Studies

Mr. Jeff Bain, President, Virginia School Boards Association

Mr. Jim Baldwin, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals

Dr. Randy Barrack, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals

Ms. Carolyn Bernard, Principal, Grassfield High School, Chesapeake City Public Schools,

President-Elect, Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals

Dr. Kitty Boitnott, President, Virginia Education Association

Ms. Kathy Burcher, Legislative Chair, Virginia Parent Teacher Association

Mr. Frank Cardella, High School Teacher and President, Chesterfield Education Association

Dr. Lyle Evans, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and Administrative Services,

Chesterfield County Public Schools

Mr. Stu Gibson, Past President, Virginia School Boards Association

Mr. Michael Hairston, Middle School Teacher and President, Fairfax Education Association

Ms. Bonnie Klakowicz, Elementary School Teacher, President, Prince William Education

Association

Mr. D. Patrick Lacy, Special Counsel, Virginia School Boards Association

Ms. Betty Lambdin, Director, Office of Teaching and Learning, Virginia Education Association

Mr. Dominic Melito, High School Teacher and President, Virginia Beach Education Association

Dr. James Merrill, Superintendent, Virginia Beach Public Schools

ii

Dr. H. Alan Seibert, Superintendent, Salem City Public Schools

Dr. Patricia Shoemaker, Dean, College of Education, Radford University

Dr. Thomas Shortt, Executive Director, Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals

(served through November 2010)

Mr. J. Andrew Stamp, Associate Executive Director, Virginia Association of School

Superintendents

Dr. Benita Stephens, Principal, Potomac Middle School, Prince William County Public Schools

Dr. Philip Worrell, Superintendent, Greensville County Public Schools, and President,

Virginia Association of School Superintendents

Project Consultants

Dr. James H. Stronge, Heritage Professor of Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership,

The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia

With assistance from: Dr. Leslie W. Grant, The College of William and Mary

Ginny Caine Tonneson, Transformational Concepts, LLC

Xianxuan Xu, The College of William and Mary

Dr. Terry Dozier, Associate Professor, Teaching and Learning, and Director, Center for Teacher

Leadership, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Education

Project Facilitator

Center for Innovative Technology, 2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 600, Herndon, Virginia 20170

Department of Education Staff

Dr. Patricia I. Wright, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Virginia Department of Education

Dr. Mark Allan, Director, Standards, Curriculum and Instruction, Virginia Department of

Education

iii

Ms. Bethann Canada, Director of Educational Information Management, Virginia Department of

Education

Dr. Deborah Jonas, Executive Director for Research and Strategic Planning, Virginia Department

of Education

Dr. James Lanham, Director of Teacher Licensure and School Leadership and Evaluation Project

Coordinator, Virginia Department of Education

Mrs. Patty S. Pitts, Assistant Superintendent for Teacher Education and Licensure, Virginia

Department of Education

Dr. Kathleen Smith, Director of School Improvement, Virginia Department of Education

Ms. Carol Sylvester, Title IIA Specialist, Virginia Department of Education

Ms. Michelle Vucci, Director of Policy, Virginia Department of Education

Ms. Anne Wescott, Assistant Superintendent for Policy and Communications, Virginia Department

of Education

iv

Table of Contents

Part 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................1

Why Good Evaluation is Necessary .............................................................................................1

Problems with Current Evaluation Systems .................................................................................1

Importance of Recognizing Teacher Effectiveness ......................................................................3

Purposes of Evaluation .................................................................................................................3

Purposes of This Document .........................................................................................................4

Part 2: Uniform Performance Standards for Teachers ..............................................................7

Defining Teacher Performance Standards ....................................................................................7

Performance Standards .................................................................................................................7

Performance Indicators ................................................................................................................8

Part 3: Documenting Teacher Performance ..............................................................................13

Observations ...............................................................................................................................14

Formal Observation ..............................................................................................................14

Informal Observation ............................................................................................................19

Walk-through Observations ..................................................................................................22

Student Surveys ....................................................................................................................22

Portfolios/Document Logs ....................................................................................................28

Portfolios ...............................................................................................................................28

Performance Artifacts ...........................................................................................................29

Tips on Creating a Portfolio ..................................................................................................29

Implementing Portfolios .......................................................................................................30

Document Logs .....................................................................................................................31

Sample Documentation .........................................................................................................31

Sample Portfolio Templates ..................................................................................................33

Self-Evaluation .....................................................................................................................35

Part 4: Connecting Teacher Performance to Student Academic Progress ............................39

Why Connect Teacher Performance to Student Academic Progress? .......................................39

Implementation Concerns .....................................................................................................41

Virginia Law .........................................................................................................................41

Methods for Connecting Student Performance to Teacher Evaluation ................................42

Goal Setting for Student Achievement .......................................................................................46

Why Student Achievement Goal Setting? ............................................................................46

Goal Setting Process .............................................................................................................46

Developing Goals..................................................................................................................48

Submission of the Goal Setting for Student Academic Progress Form ................................48

v

Mid-Year Review of Goal ....................................................................................................48

End-of-Year Review of Goal ................................................................................................48

Goal Setting Form Explanation ............................................................................................48

Part 5: Rating Teacher Performance .........................................................................................53

Interim Evaluation ......................................................................................................................53

Summative Evaluation ...............................................................................................................58

Definitions of Ratings ................................................................................................................58

How a Performance Rubric Works ............................................................................................59

Sample Performance Indicators ............................................................................................59

Performance Rubric ..............................................................................................................59

Performance Rubrics for Performance Standards .................................................................60

Performance Standard 1: Professional Knowledge ...............................................................60

Performance Standard 2: Instructional Planning ..................................................................61

Performance Standard 3: Instructional Delivery ...................................................................62

Performance Standard 4: Assessment of/for Student Learning ............................................63

Performance Standard 5: Learning Environment .................................................................64

Performance Standard 6: Professionalism ............................................................................65

Performance Standard 7: Student Academic Progress ..........................................................66

Performance Rubrics and Summative Evaluation ................................................................66

Part 6: Improving Teacher Performance ..................................................................................73

Support Dialogue ........................................................................................................................74

Performance Improvement Plan .................................................................................................76

Implementation of Performance Improvement Plan .............................................................76

Resolution of Performance Improvement Plan .....................................................................76

Request for Review of an Unacceptable Rating ................................................................77

Portions of these teacher evaluation materials were adapted from teacher evaluation

handbooks, research, and publications developed and copyrighted [2010] by James H.

Stronge. James H. Stronge hereby grants permission for noncommercial use to the Virginia

Department of Education, Virginia school divisions, and other Virginia educational

organizations to modify, create derivatives, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use these

materials exclusively in Virginia. Permission is not granted for its use outside of the

Commonwealth of Virginia.

1

Part 1: Introduction

Why Good Evaluation is Necessary1

Teacher evaluation matters because teaching matters. In fact, the core of education is teaching

and learning, and the teaching-learning connection works best when we have effective teachers

working with every student every day.2 Evaluation systems must be of high quality if we are to

discern whether our teachers are of high quality. The quality of an education system cannot

exceed the quality of its teachers.3 The role of a teacher requires a performance evaluation

system that acknowledges the complexities of the job. Teachers have a challenging task in

meeting the educational needs of an educationally diverse student population, and good

evaluation is necessary to provide the teachers with the support, recognition, and guidance they

need to sustain and improve their efforts.4

Because teachers are so fundamentally important to school improvement and student success,

improving the evaluation of teacher performance is particularly relevant as a means to recognize

excellence in teaching and to advance teacher effectiveness. A meaningful evaluation focuses on

instructional quality and professional standards, and through this focus and timely feedback,

enables teachers and leaders to recognize, appreciate, value, and develop excellent teaching. The

usage of the terminology is consistent with the professional literature, but that effective is not

intended to connote a particular technical definition. The benefits of a teacher evaluation system

are numerous and well documented. Johnston (1999) noted that the process of teacher

evaluation can be valuable in several ways, including:

assessing the effectiveness of classroom teachers;

identifying areas in need of improvement;

making professional development more individualized; and

improving instruction schoolwide.5

Sanders (2000) observed that once teachers are given feedback pertaining to classroom-level

instructional outcomes, they start to modify their instruction to address their weak areas. It is

important, however, that when administrators make decisions and provide feedback to teachers

on their performance, that the information is a valid measure of their actual job performance,

which means it should include a teachers responsibilities both in-class and out-of-class.6

Problems with Current Evaluation Systems

Unfortunately, even though a teachers effectiveness7 is recognized as the most important factor

in improving student achievement, schools rarely measure, document, or use effectiveness

ratings to inform decision-making.8 The result is that it is difficult to distinguish between poor,

average, good, and excellent teachers. Sometimes termed the Widget Effect, 9 schools tend to

assume that teachers effectiveness in the classroom is the same from teacher to teacher and,

2

thus, treat them as interchangeable parts. Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, and Keeling (2009)10

indicated that all teachers are rated as great or at least good. In fact, in their study, 99 percent

of teachers were rated as satisfactory when their schools used a satisfactory/unsatisfactory rating

system; in schools that used an evaluation scale with a broader range of options, an

overwhelming 94 percent of all teachers received one of the top two ratings. Further, they noted

that evaluation systems reinforce this indifference to the variations in teacher performance in

several ways:

Excellence is not recognized. A rating scale that does not distinguish the truly

outstanding performers from the average ones creates a situation where the exceptional

teachers are not identified and cannot be recognized formally.

Professional development is inadequate. School divisions cannot identify the needs of

teachers and provide professional development if their shortcomings are never identified.

Novice teachers do not receive special attention. When evaluation systems do not

identify the specific developmental needs of new teachers (who are widely recognized as

needing support to build and implement the most effective practices), they do not receive

the assistance they need to correct their deficiencies.

Poor performance does not get addressed. Schools that provide teachers with inflated,

unrealistic ratings rarely dismiss teachers for poor performance, even though they are

recognized by other teachers and administrators as being ineffective.

Other flaws in the current teacher evaluation process include:11

problems with the evaluation instruments themselves (e.g., subjectivity, low validity);

issues related to time and resources;12

a tendency to focus on paperwork routines rather than improving instruction;

an absence of standard protocols and practices in teacher practices;

an absence of meaningful and timely feedback to teachers;

inadequate administrator training;

a lack of time to perform adequate evaluations;13

a lack of impact; and

a lack of constructive criticism on the evaluation that can be used to improve professional

practice and often are based on sparse evidence.

3

Historically, the result is that little has been done to develop, support, and retain effective

teachers and most teachers, even the ineffective ones, become tenured or gain continuing

contract status. In short,

Evaluation systems fail to differentiate performance among teachers.Excellent teachers

cannot be recognized or rewarded, chronically low-performing teachers languish, and the

wide majority of teachers performing at moderate levels do not get the differentiated

support and development they need to improve as professionals.14

Importance of Recognizing Teacher Effectiveness

Characterizing teacher effectiveness is important because of the direct impact teachers have on

student performance. In fact, teacher effectiveness is the most significant school-related variable

impacting student learning outcomes.15 Stronge, et al., (in press) conducted a study on teacher

effectiveness and discovered that a 30+ percentile point difference in student achievement in

mathematics and English could be attributed to the quality of teaching that occurred in the

classroom over an academic year.16

Purposes of Evaluation

The primary purposes of a quality teacher evaluation system are to:

contribute to the successful achievement of the goals and objectives defined in the school

divisions educational plan;

improve the quality of instruction by ensuring accountability for classroom performance

and teacher effectiveness;

implement a performance evaluation system that promotes a positive working

environment and continuous communication between the teacher and the evaluator that

promotes continuous professional growth and improved student outcomes;

promote self-growth, instructional effectiveness, and improvement of overall

professional performance; and, ultimately

optimize student learning and growth.

A high quality evaluation system includes the following distinguishing characteristics:

benchmark behaviors for each of the teacher performance standards;

a focus on the relationship between teacher performance and improved student learning

and growth;

4

a system for documenting teacher performance based on multiple data sources regarding

teacher performance;

the use of multiple data sources for documenting performance, including opportunities

for teachers to present evidence of their own performance as well as student growth;

a procedure for conducting performance reviews that stresses accountability, promotes

professional improvement, and increases teacher involvement in the evaluation process;

and

a support system for providing assistance when needed.

Purposes of this Document

The Board of Education is required to establish performance standards and evaluation criteria for

teachers, principals, and superintendents to serve as guidelines for school divisions to use in

implementing educator evaluation systems. The Code of Virginia requires (1) that teacher

evaluations be consistent with the performance objectives (standards) set forth in the Board of

Educations Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for

Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents and (2) that school boards procedures for

evaluating instructional personnel address student academic progress.

Section 22.1-253.13:5 (Standard 5. Quality of classroom instruction and educational

leadership) of the Code of Virginia states, in part, the following:

B. Consistent with the finding that leadership is essential for the advancement of

public education in the Commonwealth, teacher, administrator, and

superintendent evaluations shall be consistent with the performance objectives

included in the Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation

Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents. Teacher evaluations

shall include regular observation and evidence that instruction is aligned with the

school's curriculum. Evaluations shall include identification of areas of individual

strengths and weaknesses and recommendations for appropriate professional

activities.

Section 22.1-295 (Employment of teachers) states, in part, the following:

C. School boards shall develop a procedure for use by division superintendents and

principals in evaluating instructional personnel that is appropriate to the tasks

performed and addresses, among other things, student academic progress

[emphasis added] and the skills and knowledge of instructional personnel,

including, but not limited to, instructional methodology, classroom management,

and subject matter knowledge.

5

The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers set

forth seven performance standards for all Virginia teachers. Pursuant to state law, teacher

evaluations must be consistent with the performance standards (objectives) included in this

document.

The Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers

provide school divisions with a model evaluation system, including sample forms and templates

that may be implemented as is or used to refine existing local teacher evaluation systems.

Properly implemented, the evaluation system provides school divisions with the information

needed to support systems of differentiated compensations or performance-based pay.

The Code of Virginia requires that school boards procedures for evaluating teachers address

student academic progress; how this requirement is met is the responsibility of local school

boards. Though not mandated, the Boards Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and

Evaluation Criteria for Teachers recommend that each teacher receive a summative evaluation

rating, and that the rating be determined by weighting the first six standards equally at 10 percent

each, and that the seventh standard, student academic progress, account for 40 percent of the

summative evaluation.

The document was developed specifically for use with classroom teachers. For other nonclassroom

educators who are required to hold a Virginia teaching license, revisions likely will be

necessary. For example, guidance counselors and library-media specialists may require modified

performance standards and data sources different from classroom teachers.

6

Endnotes

1 Portions of this section were adapted from teacher evaluation handbooks published in various states, copyright

[2010] by J. H. Stronge. Adapted with permission.

2 Stronge, J. H. (2006), p. 1.

3 Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. (2007).

4 Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., & Gareis, C. R. (2002).

5 Johnston, D. L. (1999) as cited in Stronge, J. H. (2006), p. 119.

6 Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., & Gareis, C. R. (2002).

7 The usage of the terms effective and ineffective is consistent with that used in professional literature. These

terms are not intended to connote particular technical definitions.

8 Westberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009).



11 Stronge, J. H. (2006), p. 120.

12 Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2003) as cited in Stronge (2006).

13 Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996) as cited in Stronge (2006).

14 Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009), p. 4.

15 Hattie, J. (2009).

16 Stronge, J. H., et al., (in press).

7

Part 2: Uniform

Performance Standards for Teachers

The uniform performance standards for teachers are used to collect and present data to document

performance that is based on well-defined job expectations. They provide a balance between

structure and flexibility and define common purposes and expectations, thereby guiding effective

instructional practice. The performance standards also provide flexibility, encouraging creativity

and individual teacher initiative. The goal is to support the continuous growth and development

of each teacher by monitoring, analyzing, and applying pertinent data compiled within a system

of meaningful feedback.

Defining Teacher Performance Standards

Clearly defined professional responsibilities constitute the foundation of the teacher performance

standards. A fair and comprehensive evaluation system provides sufficient detail and accuracy

so that both teachers and evaluators (i.e., principal, supervisor) reasonably understand the job

expectations.

The expectations for professional performance are defined using a two-tiered approach.

Performance Standards

Performance standards define the criteria expected when teachers perform their major duties.

For all teachers, there are seven performance standards as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Performance Standards


The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the

developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.



strategies, resources, and data to meet the needs of all students.


The teacher effectively engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional

strategies in order to meet individual learning needs.





8


The teacher uses resources, routines, and procedures to provide a respectful, positive, safe,

student-centered environment that is conducive to learning.


The teacher maintains a commitment to professional ethics, communicates effectively, and

takes responsibility for and participates in professional growth that results in enhanced

student learning.


The work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic

progress.

Performance Indicators

Performance indicators provide examples of observable, tangible behavior that indicate the

degree to which teachers are meeting each teaching standard. This helps teachers and their

evaluators clarify performance levels and job expectations. That is, the performance indicators

provide the answer to what must be performed. Performance indicators are provided as

examples of the types of performance that will occur if a standard is being fulfilled. However,

the list of performance indicators is not exhaustive, and they are not intended to be prescriptive.

Teachers are not expected to demonstrate each performance indicator, as all performance

indicators may not be applicable to a particular work assignment. However, some teaching

positions may need to identify specific indicators that are consistent with job requirements and

school improvement plans. Teachers of students with disabilities, for example, are required to

participate in Individual Educational Program (IEP) meetings and maintain appropriate

documentation regarding student performance. This might be added as a performance indicator

under Performance Standard 7 (Student Academic Progress). Similarly, science teachers might

add a performance indicator regarding laboratory safety under Performance Standard 5 (Learning

Environment).

Evaluators and teachers should consult the sample performance indicators for clarification of

what constitutes a specific performance standard. Performance ratings are NOT made at the

performance indicator level, but at the performance standard level. Additionally, it is

important to document a teachers performance on each standard with evidence generated

from multiple performance indicators. Sample performance indicators for each of the

performance standards follow.

9


The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the

developmental needs of students by providing relevant learning experiences.

Sample Performance Indicators

Examples of teacher work conducted in the performance of the standard may include, but

are not limited to:

1.1 Effectively addresses appropriate curriculum standards.

1.2 Integrates key content elements and facilitates students use of higher level thinking

skills in instruction.

1.3 Demonstrates ability to link present content with past and future learning

experiences, other subject areas, and real world experiences and applications.

1.4 Demonstrates an accurate knowledge of the subject matter.

1.5 Demonstrates skills relevant to the subject area(s) taught.

1.6 Bases instruction on goals that reflect high expectations and an understanding of the

subject.

1.7 Demonstrates an understanding of the intellectual, social, emotional, and physical

development of the age group.

1.8 Communicates clearly and checks for understanding.



strategies, resources, and data to meet the needs of all students.



are not limited to:

2.1 Uses student learning data to guide planning.

2.2 Plans time realistically for pacing, content mastery, and transitions.

2.3 Plans for differentiated instruction.

2.4 Aligns lesson objectives to the schools curriculum and student learning needs.

2.5 Develops appropriate long- and short-range plans and adapts plans when needed.

10


The teacher effectively engages students in learning by using a variety of instructional

strategies in order to meet individual learning needs.



are not limited to:

3.1 Engages and maintains students in active learning.

3.2 Builds upon students existing knowledge and skills.

3.3 Differentiates instruction to meet the students needs.

3.4 Reinforces learning goals consistently throughout lessons.

3.5 Uses a variety of effective instructional strategies and resources.

3.6 Uses instructional technology to enhance student learning.

3.7 Communicates clearly and checks for understanding.







are not limited to:

4.1 Uses pre-assessment data to develop expectations for students, to differentiate

instruction, and to document learning.

4.2 Involves students in setting learning goals and monitoring their own progress.

4.3 Uses a variety of assessment strategies and instruments that are valid and appropriate

for the content and for the student population.

4.4 Aligns student assessment with established curriculum standards and benchmarks.

4.5 Uses assessment tools for both formative and summative purposes and uses grading

practices that report final mastery in relationship to content goals and objectives.

4.6 Uses assessment tools for both formative and summative purposes to inform, guide,

and adjust students learning.

4.7 Gives constructive and frequent feedback to students on their learning.

11


The teacher uses resources, routines, and procedures to provide a respectful, positive, safe,

student-centered environment that is conducive to learning.



are not limited to:

5.1 Arranges the classroom to maximize learning while providing a safe environment.

5.2 Establishes clear expectations, with student input, for classroom rules and procedures

early in the school year, and enforces them consistently and fairly.

5.3 Maximizes instructional time and minimizes disruptions.

5.4 Establishes a climate of trust and teamwork by being fair, caring, respectful, and

enthusiastic.

5.5 Promotes cultural sensitivity.

5.6 Respects students diversity, including language, culture, race, gender, and special

needs.

5.7 Actively listens and pays attention to students needs and responses.

5.8 Maximizes instructional learning time by working with students individually as well

as in small groups or whole groups.


The teacher maintains a commitment to professional ethics, communicates effectively, and

takes responsibility for and participates in professional growth that results in enhanced

student learning.



are not limited to:

6.1 Collaborates and communicates effectively within the school community to promote

students well-being and success.

6.2 Adheres to federal and state laws, school and division policies, and ethical

guidelines.

6.3 Incorporates learning from professional growth opportunities into instructional

practice.

6.4 Sets goals for improvement of knowledge and skills.

6.5 Engages in activities outside the classroom intended for school and student

enhancement.

12

6.6 Works in a collegial and collaborative manner with administrators, other school

personnel, and the community.

6.7 Builds positive and professional relationships with parents/guardians through

frequent and effective communication concerning students progress.

6.8 Serves as a contributing member of the schools professional learning community

through collaboration with teaching colleagues.

6.9 Demonstrates consistent mastery of standard oral and written English in all

communication.


The work of the teacher results in acceptable, measurable, and appropriate student academic

progress.



are not limited to:

7.1 Sets acceptable, measurable, and appropriate achievement goals for student learning

progress based on baseline data.

7.2 Documents the progress of each student throughout the year.

7.3 Provides evidence that achievement goals have been met, including the stateprovided

growth measure when available as well as other multiple measures of

student growth.

7.4 Uses available performance outcome data to continually document and communicate

student academic progress and develop interim learning targets.

Note: Performance Standard 7: If a teacher effectively fulfills all previous standards, it is likely

that the results of teaching -- as documented in Standard 7: Student Academic Progress --

would be positive. The Virginia teacher evaluation system includes the documentation of

student growth as indicated within Standard 7 and recommends that the evidence of

progress be reviewed and considered throughout the year.

13

Part 3: Documenting Teacher Performance

The role of a teacher requires a performance evaluation system that acknowledges the

complexities of the job. Multiple data sources provide for a comprehensive and authentic

performance portrait of the teachers work. The sources of information described in Figure 3.1

were selected to provide comprehensive and accurate feedback on teacher performance. These

suggested documentation sources for teacher evaluation can be used for both probationary and

continuing contract teachers.

Figure 3.1: Suggested Documentation Sources for Teacher Evaluation

Data Source Definition

Formal

Observations

Observations are an important source of performance information. Formal

observations focus directly on the seven teacher performance standards.

Classroom observations also may include a review of teacher products or

artifacts, and review of student data.

Informal

Observations

Informal observations are intended to provide more frequent information on a

wider variety of contributions made by the teacher. Evaluators are encouraged

to conduct observations by visiting classrooms, observing instruction, and

observing work in non-classroom settings.

Student

Surveys

Student surveys provide information to the teacher about students perceptions

of how the professional is performing. The actual survey responses are seen

only by the teacher who prepares a survey summary for inclusion in the

portfolio. The surveys provided in this document are designed to be used in

grades 1 12 (e.g., not with pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students).

Portfolios/

Document

Logs

Portfolios/document logs provide documentation generated by the teacher for

the seven performance standards.

Self-

Evaluation

Self-evaluations reveal the teachers perceptions of their job performance.

14

Observations

Observations are intended to provide information on a wide variety of contributions made by

teachers in the classroom or to the school community as a whole. Administrators are continually

observing in their schools by walking through classrooms and non-instructional spaces, attending

meetings, and participating in school activities. These day-to-day observations are not

necessarily noted in writing, but they do serve as a source of information.

Direct classroom observation can be a useful way to collect information on teacher performance;

as a stand-alone data collection process, however, it has major limitations. If the purpose of a

teacher evaluation system is to provide a comprehensive picture of performance in order to guide

professional growth, then classroom observations should be only one piece of the data collection

puzzle. Given the complexity of the job responsibilities of teachers, it is unlikely that an

evaluator will have the opportunity to observe and provide feedback on all of the performance

standards in a given visit.

Observations can be conducted in a variety of settings and take on a variety of forms, including

quick, drop-by classroom visits, to more formal, pre-planned observational reviews using

validated instruments for documenting observations.1 Furthermore, observations may be

announced or unannounced. Evaluators are encouraged to conduct observations by observing

instruction and non-instructional routines at various times throughout the evaluation cycle.

Formal Observation

In a formal observation, the evaluator conducts a structured or semi-structured, planned

observation -- either announced or unannounced -- typically of a teacher who is presenting a

lesson to or interacting with students. Evaluators can use formal observations as one source of

information to determine whether a teacher is meeting expectations for performance standards.

A sample Formal Classroom Observation Form is provided on pages 16-18; many other

observation forms are available. Formal classroom observations should last a specified period of

time (for example, 30 or 45 minutes, or the duration of a full lesson). For maximum value, the

building level administrator should ensure that formal observations occur throughout the year.

Typically, the evaluator provides feedback about the observation during a review conference

with the teacher. During the session -- which should occur within a specified number of school

days following the observation -- the evaluator reviews all information summarized on the

Formal Classroom Observation Form as well as any other applicable documentation. Sample

post-observation inquiries are shown in Figure 3.2. One copy of the observation form should be

given to the teacher, and one copy should be maintained by the evaluator for the entire

evaluation cycle to document professional growth and development.

15

Figure 3.2: Sample Post-Observation Inquiries

What went well during the lesson I observed?

What would you do differently the next time you teach this lesson and/or use a particular

instructional strategy?

How would you describe the learning climate of the classroom during the lesson?

What occurred during the day before I arrived for the observation that may have influenced

what happened during the time I spent in your class?

How did you address students who needed more time to fully understand and master the

concept?

I observed a snapshot of your instruction. How well did the students learning reflect your

intended learning outcomes?

What informal or formal assessments did you conduct prior to teaching this lesson? How did

the data from the assessments influence this lesson?

How did you let students know what the objective for the lesson was and how the students

would know if they successfully achieved it?

What student characteristics or needs do you keep in mind as you are giving directions?

What goal(s) did you set this year for student achievement? How are your students progressing

on that/those goal(s)?

1 Stronge, J. H. & Tucker, P. D. (2003) as cited in Stronge, J. H. (2010b).

Sample: Formal Classroom Observation Form Page 1 of 3

16

SAMPLE: Formal Classroom Observation Form

Directions: This form is to be used for probationary teachers and teachers with continuing

contract status. Observers should use the form to provide feedback to teachers about the

observation.

Teachers Name Date Observed Time

The teacher is: Probationary

Observers Name Continuing Contract

1. Professional Knowledge

The teacher demonstrates an understanding of the curriculum, subject content, and the developmental needs of

students by providing relevant learning experiences.

Effectively addresses appropriate curriculum

standards.

Integrates key content elements and facilitates

students use of higher level thinking skills in

instruction.

Demonstrates ability to link present content with past

and future learning experiences, other subject areas,

and real world experiences and applications.

Demonstrates an accurate knowledge of the subject

area(s) taught.

Demonstrates skills relevant to the subject

area(s) taught.

Bases instruction on goals that reflect high

expectations and an understanding of the

subject.

Demonstrates an understanding of the

intellectual, social, emotional, and physical

development of the age group.

Communicates clearly and checks for

understanding.

Comments:

2. Instructional Planning

The teacher plans using the Virginia Standards of Learning, the schools curriculum, effective strategies, resources,

and data to meet the needs of all students.

Uses student learning data to guide planning.

Plans time realistically for pacing, content mastery,

and transitions.

Plans for differentiated instruction.

Aligns lesson objectives to the schools curriculum

and student learning needs.

Develops appropriate long- and short-range plans

and adapts plans when needed.

Comments:

Sample: Formal Classroom Observation Form Page 2 of 3

17

3. Instructional Delivery

T

wp.vcu.eduwp.vcu.edu/.../sites/3361/2014/05/Policy-Research-Proje… · Web viewPolicy Research...

Documents

Transcript of wp.vcu.eduwp.vcu.edu/.../sites/3361/2014/05/Policy-Research-Proje… · Web viewPolicy Research...