North Dakota Principal and Teacher Evaluation. Welcome! What is your present status? Change! The Why and How of PTESS Update on PTESS progress and timeline.

North Dakota Principal and Teacher Evaluation

Welcome!• What is your present status?• Change!• The Why and How of PTESS• Update on PTESS progress and timeline • Major Model Discussion• People using Models• Discussion and Q&A

2

Colored index cards as follows

Red Card 1Yellow Card 2Green Card 3Orange Card 4White Card 5

What is the Purpose of Evaluation?

1. Is the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation and supervision, to Rate (measure) the effectiveness, to provide feedback for Growth, or Both?

1. Rate (measure) only (RED) 2. Rate (measure) mainly, but some growth (Yellow)3. 50% each Rate and Growth (Green)4. Growth mainly, with some Rating. (Orange)5. Growth only (White)

4

Present System (Feedback)?2. To what degree is your present system effective in providing useful, precise, actionable feedback? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty good Green) 4. Excellent (Orange)

5

Present System (Rating)?

3. To what degree is your present system effective in Rating (measuring) your professional practice? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty good Green) 4. Excellent(Orange)

6

Present System (Satisfaction)?

4. How satisfied are you with your present system? 1. Not at all (RED) 2. Some (Yellow) 3. Pretty Satisfied Green) 4. Very Satisfied (Orange)

7

Present System (Satisfied)?

5. Are you using or planning on using one of the following models for teacher evaluation? 1. Danielson (RED) 2. Marzano (Yellow) 3. Marshall Green) 4. McREL (Orange) 5. None of the ones listed (White)

8

The first wildebeest to cross the river is more likely to be eaten!

Vision Skills Incentives

Resources ActionPlan

Leading Complex Change

Skills Incentives

Resources ActionPlan

Vision Incentives

Resources ActionPlan

Vision Skills Resources ActionPlan

Vision Skills ActionPlan

Incentives

ResourcesVision Skills Incentives

Confusion

Change

Anxiety

GradualChange

Frustration

False Start

© Enterprise Management Ltd., 1987.

8 Steps for Leading Change Spiro1. Goal:

2. Readiness:Low Readiness – High StructureHigh Readiness - Low Structure

3. Stakeholders: Who are the key stakeholders? Who are the Opinion Leaders?

4. Early Wins:

5. Anticipate Resistance: Match the readiness level with support, identify potential opponents and bring them on board or minimize their ability to derail plans, and celebrate short term wins and think about the benefits of the new system.

6. Collaborate Planning: Do we have the right people involved in the selection and implementation process?

7. Scale & Sustainability: If we start with a small group, how will we scale up? If we invest in tools and process, can we sustain the effort?

8. Build in on-going Monitoring /course corrections: Who does What by When, and monitor to make changes as needed.

Why are we doing this?

Why are we doing this?

What does the data say?

2009 2010 2011 2012 201320

20.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

21

21.2

21.4

21.6

ACT Composite: ND vs. National

StateNational

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

Arkansas

Colorado

Illinois

Kentucky

Louisia

na

Michiga

n

Mississ

ippi

North Caro

lina

North Dak

ota

Tenness

eeUtah

Wyo

ming17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

Composite 2013: ND vs. States where all students take the ACT

Composite

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

2009 2010 2011 2012 201318.8

19

19.2

19.4

19.6

19.8

20

20.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

ACT English: ND vs. National

StateNational

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

Arkansas

Colorado

Illinois

Kentucky

Louisia

na

Michiga

n

Mississ

ippi

North Caro

lina

North Dak

ota

Tenness

eeUtah

Wyo

ming15.5

16

16.5

17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

English 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT

English

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

2009 2010 2011 2012 201319.8

20

20.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

21

21.2

21.4

21.6

21.8

ACT Reading: ND vs. National

StateNational

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

Arkansas

Colorado

Illinois

Kentucky

Louisia

na

Michiga

n

Mississ

ippi

North Caro

lina

North Dak

ota

Tenness

eeUtah

Wyo

ming17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

21.5

Reading 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT

Reading

2009 2010 2011 2012 201320.4

20.6

20.8

21

21.2

21.4

21.6

ACT Math: ND vs. National

StateNational

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

Arkansas

Colorado

Illinois

Kentucky

Louisia

na

Michiga

n

Mississ

ippi

North Caro

lina

North Dak

ota

Tenness

eeUtah

Wyo

ming17

17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

Math 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT

Math

2009 2010 2011 2012 201320.2

20.4

20.6

20.8

21

21.2

21.4

21.6

ACT Science: ND vs. National

StateNational

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/index.html

Arkansas

Colorado

Illinois

Kentucky

Louisia

na

Michiga

n

Mississ

ippi

North Caro

lina

North Dak

ota

Tenness

eeUtah

Wyo

ming17.5

18

18.5

19

19.5

20

20.5

21

Science 2013: ND vs States where all students take the ACT

Science

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

# Core 3890 3894 4117 4032 4011

# not Core 1761 1870 2574 2546 2521

250

750

1,250

1,750

2,250

2,750

3,250

3,750

4,250

Total Number of ND Students ACT Core and Non Core

# Core# not Core

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% core 67 66 58 58 56

% not core 30 32 36 37 35

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

Percent ND Students Core vs Non Core

% core% not core

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Composite Core 22.6 22.7 22.3 22.3 22.3

Composite Not Core 19.3 19.2 18.4 18.4 18.1

2.5

7.5

12.5

17.5

22.5

ND Composite ACT Core vs Non Core

Composite CoreComposite Not Core

https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2013/pdf/profile/NorthDakota.pdf

Grade 4 NAEP Data

Grade 8 NAEP Data

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

College Bound 6071 5747 5889 5726 5557 5574

Graduates 7445 7318 7348 7295 7183 6992

500

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7500

ND College BoundSt

uden

t N

umbe

rs

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

79.4% 79.3% 77.0% 76.4% 75.1% 76.6%

Pair-ShareHow is your school feeling about the readiness for a new system?

31

How are we doing this?

North Dakota AdvancED

Principal Evaluation

AdvancEDAssurance

and Indicators

2.6, 3.4

AdvancED Indicators 1.1, 1.2, 2.4, 2.5

Teacher Evaluation

AdvancEDAssurance

and Indicators

2.6, 3.4

Professional Development/Learning

AdvancED Indicators3.5, 3.7, 3.11

North Dakota Common Core

AdvancED Indicators3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 4.4

Assessment and SLDS

AdvancED Indicators3.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

Accreditation and School

Imporovement

AdvancED Assuranceand

Indicators1.3, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5

How does this FIT Together in North Dakota?

Where are you with AdvancED?

Green Card if you are presently using AdvancED

Red Card if not

Yellow card if in the process of changing to AdvancED

34

Pair-ShareHow is your school doing in connecting all of the different state initiatives together?

35

What are the new Guidelines?

Timelines13-14 Spring State finalize guidelines with approved models as examples

14-15 Information on Guidelines and Examples provided by the State

14-15 Schools develop or select model for principal evaluation by Nov, 2014

14-15 Schools begin implementation process of a model for principal evaluation by Feb, 2015

14-15 School develop or select model for teacher evaluation by June, 2015

15-16 Schools begin the implementation process for teacher model starting Sept, 2015

16-17 State monitor schools to see plans implemented

37

What was the Waiver and how does not doing the Waiver Effect us?

Unique to North Dakota

• Student Performance NOT Significant Portion of Evaluation

• Levels of Performance DO NOT have to be translated into State Levels

• DO NOT have to arrive at an OVERALL SINGLE PERFORMANCE LEVEL for teacher or principal

• Teacher Performance Levels DO NOT have to be shared with the State

40

Before & After: A SnapshotBefore Component After

Binary – Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory

Performance Level Differentiation

At least Four Different Levels

Evaluation required twice yearly first three years, and

yearly for after thatFrequency of Evaluations

No change: Evaluation required twice yearly first three years, and yearly for

after that

Not based on standards StandardsTeachers based on InTASC

Standards and Principals based on ISLLC

Standards

No existing requirement for Student Performance Data

Student Performance Indicator

Student Performance Data will be a portion of the teacher and principal

evaluation

41

Before & After: A SnapshotBefore Component After

State does not require one model Model

No change- the state will does not require one

model.

Performance Levels

45

Typical Evaluation Cycle?Self-

Assessment

Goal Setting

Evidence Collection & Observation

Formative Reflection

and Review

Evidence Collection & Observation

Summative Evaluation

Professional Development Planning

Student Data Analysis

Principal Supervision CycleORIENTATION on

PROCESS•Formative

•March - August

PRE-PLANNING by Principal

FormativeAugust

GOAL SETTING CONFERENCE

FormativeAug/Sept

EVIDENCE COLLECTION and MONITORING OF

PlanFormative

Sept-March

FORMATIVE CONFERENCING Oct-Feb

END OF YEAR SUMMATIVE CONFERENCESummative

March

Share with your group

What model are you using right now in teacher and principal evaluations?

47

Models

48

http://ndlead.org/domain/295

Models

Danielson

49

http://tpep-wa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/instructional-frameworks/danielson-framework/

Models

Marzano

50

http://tpep-wa.org/the-model/framework-and-rubrics/instructional-frameworks/marzano/

Models

Marshall

51

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/43167822

Models

Costs

52

Q and A?

Student Performance?

Student Performance Teacher

A. Student achievement data literacy B. Instructional improvement: applies student

achievement data to frame and measure standards-based curricular claims/student learning objectives.

C. Student Growth: students demonstrate measureable growth and achievement on specified standardized and non-standardized measures.

Student Performance Principal

A. Student achievement data literacy B. Data-driven leadership: evidences meaningful school-

wide professional learning that emphasizes all types and reporting levels of student achievement data.

C. Instructional improvement: guides teachers to apply student achievement data to frame and measure standards-based curricular claims/student learning objectives.

D. Student Growth: students in the school demonstrate measureable growth and achievement on specified standardized and non-standardized measures.

Share with your table?

Questions or comments on Student Performance

58

Q and A• Which evaluation if Superintendent / Principal?• How to do evaluation in K-8 with no

Superintendent?• How do you do with Guidance Counselors?• How do you do with Media Specialists?• How do you do with Special Needs Teacher

without classroom?

Regional PTESS Meetings

May 5, 2014 - MinotMay 6, 2014 - MandanMay 7, 2014 - Grand Forks May 27, 2014 - TiogaMay 28, 2014 - DickinsonMay 29, 2014 - FargoMay 30, 2014 – Jamestown

Additional InformationWebinars on Models and Technology

Website with Information

Cost of Different Models

Q & A Common Questions

• Whip Around: One significant “ah-ha moment” today

• Take a few minutes and share with us– Plus: What was a real “plus” of today’s session?

What went well and should be repeated?– Delta: Where is there room for improvement and

change?

62

Whip Around and Plus/Delta Debrief