Developing Effective Teacher Evaluations Christina Linder Director, Certification and Professional Standards http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/
Dec 22, 2015
Developing Effective Teacher Evaluations
Christina LinderDirector, Certification and Professional Standards
http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/
Timeline for Evaluation
Afte
r Jun
e 30
, 201
2, a
ll di
stric
ts a
nd p
ublic
cha
rter s
choo
ls m
ust a
dopt
a
polic
y to
incl
ude
stud
ent a
chie
vem
ent d
ata
as p
art o
f the
ir ev
alua
tion
mod
els
for s
uper
inte
nden
ts, a
ssis
tant
sup
erin
tend
ents
, dire
ctor
s,
prin
cipa
ls, o
ther
dis
trict
adm
inis
trativ
e em
ploy
ees
and
certi
ficat
ed
empl
oyee
s on
Cat
egor
y A
, B a
nd g
rand
fath
ered
con
tinui
ng c
ontra
cts
eval
uatio
ns.
Febr
uary
, 201
3 an
d ev
ery
Febr
uary
follo
win
g, th
e fir
st h
alf a
teac
hers
eval
uatio
n is
due
. Th
is h
alf o
f a te
ache
rs e
valu
atio
n is
bas
ed o
n th
e
Cha
rlotte
Dan
iels
on F
ram
ewor
k an
d in
clud
es th
e pa
rent
/gua
rdia
n in
put
com
pone
nt.
By
the
end
of th
e 20
13 s
choo
l yea
r and
subs
eque
nt y
ears
, the
sec
ond
half
of a
teac
hers
eva
luat
ion
is d
ue.
This
hal
f of a
teac
her’s
eva
luat
ion
is b
ased
on
stud
ent
achi
evem
ent a
s de
term
ined
by
the
loca
l sch
ool
boar
d.
Sta
rting
in M
arch
201
1, d
istri
cts
and
publ
ic c
harte
r sch
ools
mus
t sub
mit
the
resu
lts o
f tea
cher
and
prin
cipa
l eva
luat
ions
thro
ugh
the
ISE
E
Long
itudi
nal D
ata
Sys
tem
mon
thly
upl
oad.
Sep
tem
ber 3
0 20
11, a
ll di
stric
t and
pub
lic c
harte
r sch
ool t
each
er a
nd
prin
cipa
l eva
luat
ion
mod
els
mus
t be
post
ed to
the
SD
E w
ebsi
te a
long
with
the
resu
lts o
f all
teac
her a
nd p
rinci
pal e
valu
atio
ns.
Afte
r Jun
e 30
, 201
2, a
ll di
stric
ts a
nd p
ublic
cha
rter s
choo
ls m
ust a
dopt
a
polic
y to
incl
ude
pare
nt in
put a
s pa
rt of
thei
r eva
luat
ion
mod
els
for p
rinci
pals
,
othe
r sch
ool b
ased
adm
inis
trato
rs a
nd c
ertif
icat
ed e
mpl
oyee
s on
Cat
egor
y
A, B
and
gra
ndfa
ther
ed c
ontin
uing
con
tract
s ev
alua
tions
.
Evaluating for What?Federal Definition of Effective & Highly Effective Teacher
• Effective teacher: students achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance.
• Highly effective teacher students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic
year) of student growth.
• At the recommendation of the task force, school districts were required to adopt a teacher evaluation model and policy aligned to the Charlotte Danielson Framework.
• All districts were required to submit their teacher evaluation models and policies to the State Department of Education for review and approval.
• During the 2010-2011 school year, districts were required, at a minimum, to pilot the Danielson Framework in their district with full implementation by the 2011-12 school year.
• Most districts compliant with State Board Rule and engaging in a review of their process prior to
full implementation.
Teacher Evaluations Prior to ARRA and Students Come First
• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)– In 2009, Idaho signed on to receive federal funds under
ARRA.– ARRA reporting requirements:
• States must post each district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation model and policy online for the general public to view.
• States must post the results of each teacher and principal evaluation model online.
– Idaho was able to reach a compromise with the US Department of Education to only post the results in aggregate, by district/charter and in cases where five or more principals or five or more teacher are employed rather than individual results.
State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by ARRA
Resulting EvaluationRequirements in 2011
ARRA Compliance – Beginning in March 2011, districts and public charter schools submit the results of teacher and principal evaluations through ISEE Longitudinal Data System.
(Proficient/Non-Proficient publicly reported in aggregate)
ARRA Compliance – By September 30, 2011, all district and public charter school teacher and principal evaluation models must be posted to the SDE website along with the results of all teacher and principal evaluations. (Teacher Evaluation Model according to Idaho Code, Administrator Model according to district design)
Student Achievement Component in Evaluations
33-513: Professional Personnel and 33-514: Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation– By July 1, 2012, all superintendent, assistant superintendent,
director, principal, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts, must receive an evaluation in which 50% of the evaluation results are based on objective measures of growth in student achievement as determined by the board of trustees.
State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First
• Districts can utilize student achievement data that is individual for each teacher or schoolwide student achievement data similar to that used for the local share of Pay for Performance.
• This student achievement portion of the evaluation is separate from Pay for Performance but districts can use the same models of student achievement for both.
Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component
• Colorado Growth Model using ISAT Test Results• End of Course Assessments• IRI test results• ACT/SAT results• Student graduation rates/dropout rates• Percent of graduates attending postsecondary
education or entering military service
Models or Measures for Student Achievement Component
• What areas of student achievement do you want to see improve?
• What is your highest area of need?
• How can student growth be measured in non-tested subjects and grades?
Please keep in mind that you must resubmit your teacher
evaluation models and policies once you have made these changes. This is in compliance with the ARRA requirements.
Things to Consider
Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations
33-514: Issuance of Annual Contracts - - Written Evaluation– By July 1, 2012, input from the parents and guardians of
students shall be considered as a factor in the evaluation of principals, any other school-based administrative employees and teachers.
– For certificated employees on a Category A, B or grandfathered continuing contract, this input shall be part of the first half of the evaluation that must be completed before February 1 of each year.
State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First
• A number of Idaho school districts already utilize parent or guardian input for evaluation purposes, including:– Hansen
– Vision Charter
– Filer School District
– Plummer-Worley
– Potlatch
• Formal surveys (e.g. 360 Degree Evaluation Model)• Evidence in a teachers portfolio.
Models for Parent and Guardian Input for Evaluations
This requirement can be considered an enhancement to the collection of artifacts in completing a teacher’s normal evaluation.– Domain 4, Professional Responsibilities, Component 4c,
Communicating with families:• Teacher provides frequent information to families, as
appropriate, about the instructional program. Students participate in preparing materials for their families.
• Teacher provides information to families frequently on student progress, with students contributing to the design of the system. Response to family concerns is handled with great professional and cultural sensitivity.
• Teacher’s efforts to engage families in the instructional program are frequent and successful.
Students contribute ideas for projects that could be enhanced by family participation.
Things to Consider
• Will you consider informal communications received throughout the year or only formal surveys?
• Will the survey ask if the parent/guardian has attended parent/teacher conference or if they have spoken to your child’s teacher or administrator?
• What percentage of your evaluations will be based on the parent/guardian input or will it just be another data collection element used in looking at the overall performance?
Resource: Matt Hyde Parent Involvement Coordinator [email protected]
Things to Consider
Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2012• SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and
public charter schools must adopt a policy to include student achievement data as part of their evaluation models for superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, principals, other district administrative employees and certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.
• SCF Compliance – By July 1, 2012, all districts and public charter schools must adopt a policy to include parent input as part of their evaluation models for principals, other school based administrators and
certificated employees on Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts evaluations.
Number of Evaluations and Timeline for Evaluations • Teachers:
– There shall be a minimum of one written evaluation in each of the annual contract years of employment including Category A, B and grandfathered continuing contracts.
– The second portion shall be completed by the end of the school year and shall comprise at least fifty percent of the total written evaluation and shall be based on objective measure(s) of growth in student achievement.
– The requirement to provide at least one written evaluation does not exclude additional evaluations that
may be performed.
State Teacher Evaluations Impacted by Students Come First
Resulting Evaluation Requirements 2013
• SCF Compliance – By February, 2013 and every February following, the first half a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teachers evaluation is based on the Charlotte Danielson Framework and includes the parent/guardian input component.
• SCF Compliance – By the end of the 2013 school year and subsequent years, the second half of a teachers evaluation is due. This half of a teacher’s evaluation is based on student achievement as determined by the local school board.
Beyond Compliance: Putting It All Together
What other measures could be considered?
While state rule and statute require Value-Added measures, observation, and parental input, there are others to consider:– Content Pedagogy Assessments
– Analysis of Artifacts and Portfolios
– Self-Report of Practice
– Student Evaluation
Using Multiple Measures to Assess Teacher Effectiveness
Fall 2011
•Sample Population- second and third year teachers
•Recruiting districts for a national professional licensure project
Three Measures
1) Content Knowledge for Teaching
2) Observation of Classroom Practice Using the Danielson Framework
3) Artifacts of Teaching
Goals of the Pilot
To understand:
– how professional licensure could be improved through richer measures
– how selected measures function with real teachers in a state system
– the operational issues required to deliver a fully functioning system
Participating States
• Georgia • Idaho • Kansas •Maryland
• Missouri • New Jersey
• Ohio • Pennsylvania
• Tennessee • Utah
• Vermont • West Virginia
• Wyoming
For More Information
A full overview of the project can be accessed at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacherEval/
at the SDE Teacher Evaluation website
or
Links to Helpful Resources• NCCTQ Educator Quality Downloadable Resources:• http://www.tqsource.org/• Using the Framework for Teacher Evaluation (Handouts from
BSU Center for School Improvement)• http://csi.boisestate.edu/Improvement/Teacher%20Evaluation
%20Handouts%20-%20All.pdf• Sample Evaluation Models. Powerpoint:• http://scee.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/060/5f4/
Laura_Goe_PowerPoint.pptx• Colorado Growth Model Powerpoint:• http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9ZeUx9Y9nzw
%3D&tabid=116• Initial Findings from MET Including Student Surveys:• http://www.gatesfoundation.org/college-ready-
education/Documents/preliminary-findings-research-paper.pdf