Teacher Evaluation Teacher Instructional Growth for Effectiveness & Results (TIGER) Approved Alternative Evaluation Model from the Association of Independent.

Teacher Evaluation

Teacher Instructional Growth for Effectiveness & Results

(TIGER)Approved Alternative Evaluation Model from the

Association of Independent and Municipal Schools

(AIMS) Dr. Sharon Roberts, Lebanon Special School DistrictWayne Miller, Lenoir City Schools

Mary Reel, Milan Special School District

www.tigermodel.net

AgendaContext Surrounding AIMS Work

Rationale of Model

TIGER Overview

Comparison Issues

Implementation Plan

Training and Tools

Final Thoughts

Context Surrounding AIMS’ Work

Began with wanting to have a “voice” and a focus on professional development within our districts Consulted with Battelle for Kids and Edvantia during the process of developing a model

Consortium Members Alcoa City Schools

Alamo City Schools

Athens City Schools

Clinton City Schools

Dyersburg City Schools

Franklin SSD

Greenville City Schools

Kingsport City Schools

Lebanon SSD

Lenoir City Schools

Lexington City Schools

Maryville City Schools

Milan SSD

Newport City Schools

Oak Ridge City Schools

Oneida SSD

Paris SSD

Richard City Schools

Rogersville City Schools

Sweetwater City Schools

Trenton SSD

Union City Schools

Piloted TIGER - year long process

Obtained positive results TnCREDCore work teams of practitioners

Context Surrounding AIMS’ Work

TIGER Pilot Districts Sevier County

Alamo City Schools

Unicoi County

Jackson-Madison County

Hollow-Rock Bruceton SD

Lincoln County

Greenville City Schools

Cheatham County

Lebanon SSD

Lenoir City Schools

Lexington City Schools

Roane County

Maryville City Schools

Milan SSD

Fayette County

Tipton County

Bradford Special

Paris SSD

Richard City Schools

Trousdale County

South Carroll SD

Putnam County

Union City Schools

Pilot 21 school districts (mixture of city, special, and county

districts)

47 schools

Trained 185 evaluators

Conducted follow-up webinars and an internally developed survey

Participated in TnCRED’s study of teacher evaluation pilots in Tennessee

Conducted multiple work team sessions to continue to refine the process based upon what we are learning

Piloted management technologies in some districts

Anecdotal Results (Which Align with TnCRED Preliminary Report to TEAC)

It changes the conversations in the schools Teachers feel they are provided more useful feedback

from administrators Teachers are provided the opportunity to collaborate

with other teachers on improving instruction Fosters professional interactions

It encourages reflection and self-assessment

It encourages the use of instructional strategies to improve instruction Allows for support through coaching Allows for targeted professional development

Context Surrounding AIMS’ Work

Obtained approval from the State Board of Education as an alternative teacher evaluation model - June 2011 Competitive RFP process Partnered with Pearson

Rationale of the Model Uses a set of quality teacher performance standards, a modified set of Charlotte

Danielson’s rubrics

Focused on a continuum of teacher growth for effectiveness and results

• Continuous assessment and teacher reflection

A staged approach of teacher support (three stages) which is formative and summative

Includes a “coaching” component for Stage One and a teacher leadership component in Stage Three

Utilizes professional learning communities of teachers

Provides for targeted professional learning

Aligns qualitative and quantitative requirements of Tennessee legislation

Utilizes best practices from experts both near and far

Adaptable for varying size districts

TIGER Flowchart

Aligns with State Statute, TEAC Recommendations, and SBE PolicyAddresses four domains:

Planning and preparationClassroom environment InstructionProfessional responsibilities

Ensures observations occur as required

Aligns with quantitative requirements and results in a 1-5 effectiveness rating

Comparison Issues Focus on Formative vs. Summative

Rigor

1-4 rating process of rubric

Differentiation so that support can be provided where it is needed

Do-ability

Technology vs. paper system

Cost

• “Turnkey” solution

• Potential savings in other areas (professional development, technology solutions)

• Potential funding sources (local funds, FttT Scope of Work, appropriate Federal grants/sources)

TrainingInitial:

On-line awareness training module

On-line process training module (1.5-2.0 days)

Two-day face-to-face training to ensure inter-rater reliability and certification of evaluators

TIGER powered by Teacher Compass training

In support of making observations doable, AIMS sought a partner with technology tools that would support efficient evaluations and personalized online PD and training.

Rubrics use a common, four-point scoring system.

The evaluation process is closely aligned with a targeted professional development plan developed for each individual teacher.

A fully customizable online PD library that personalizes content based on goals is available.

Others that are interacting with the PD content can collaborate on ideas and applications.

PD reports are driven by teacher interactions. This report presents interactions across the district.

Interactions are then aggregated by school.

TrainingOngoing:

Webinars and face to face meetings for evaluators, coaches, and key district personnel

Other relevant on-line training and resources Coaching training In depth professional standards training (in development) Resources library (professional development resources

linked to teacher effectiveness elements)

Provider will train new administrators/coaches regionally at semester change as needed

Annual re-assessment of inter-rater reliability provided

Final Thoughts This is the singular evaluation model which provides a

formative format that allows for continuous teacher growth and improvement

Research-based

• Adaptation of Charlotte Danielson’s work

• TnCRED

• Pursuing partnerships to examine implementation further

Parallels educational reform strategies occurring across the nation; a teacher’s position within our framework is determined by their classroom performance

Really, it is about making an investment in what matters -- improving

instruction so that students’ outcomes are enhanced

For More Information and Copy of PowerPoint, go to:

www.tigermodel.netEmail [email protected] for temporary

password to examine resources and trainings more in depth

For Districts Interested In More Information, Contact:

Marilyn [email protected]

615-330-0799Sandra Cagle, [email protected]

615-483-3512