1.
Teacher Effectiveness Methodology Text ADE Educator Evaluation SummitThursday, September 13, 2012
2.
The impact of an effective single is the teacher most important factor in student learningThursday, September 13, 2012
3.
60% Nearly of the impact on student achievement is attributable to principal teacher and effectiveness * New Leaders for New Schools (2009)Thursday, September 13, 2012
4.
YET principal and teacher evaluation scores vary minimally failing to distinguish from great to good, good to fair, or fair to poorThursday, September 13, 2012
5.
If 98% of teachers have the same rating, how can districts use evaluation data for decision making?Thursday, September 13, 2012
6.
dual MCESA tools serve purposes (human resources • professional development) for principal teacher and evaluationsThursday, September 13, 2012
7.
New AZ laws require changes• The State Board of Education shall...”on or before December 15, 2011 adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument that includes quantitative for schools and data on student academic progress that accounts for between thirty-three percent and fifty per cent of the evaluation districts outcomes and best practices for professional development and evaluator training. School districts and charter schools shall use an instrument that meets the data requirements established Arizona Revised Statutes by the State Board of Education to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012 – 2013.” Thursday, September 13, 2012
8.
By next year, evaluations must include multiple measuresThursday, September 13, 2012
13.
Example Learning Observation Rating Scale... Score Description Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5 1 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 2 on average (based on 5 2 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 on average (based on 5 3 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on 4 5 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based 5 on 5 observations)Thursday, September 13, 2012
14.
Example Learning Observation Rating Scale... 50% of Score Score Description Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 1 on average (based on 5 1 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 2 on average (based on 5 2 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 on average (based on 5 3 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3 and 4 on average (based on 4 5 observations) Teacher meets rubric criteria for level 3, 4, and 5 on average (based 5 on 5 observations)Thursday, September 13, 2012
15.
Example Growth Scale 50% of Score Score Growth Designation Example: AIMs Value-Added Model Results On average, students’ AIMS scores are far below expected scores based on prior achievement, student & Well Below 1 classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is below the 20th percentile Expectations statewide). On average, students’ AIMS scores are below expected scores based on prior achievement, student & 2 Below Expectations classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is below the statewide average). Expected Growth On average, students’ AIMS scores are not statistically different from expected scores based on prior 3 (Average/Typical) achievement, student & classroom characteristics. On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student & 4 Above Expectations classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is above the statewide average). On average, students’ AIMS scores are above expected scores based on prior achievement, student & Well Above 5 classroom characteristics (95% statistical confidence that average growth is above the 80th percentile Expectations statewide).Thursday, September 13, 2012
Views
Actions
Embeds 0
Report content