Teacher Effectiveness Methodology
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Teacher Effectiveness Methodology

on

  • 486 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
486
Views on SlideShare
346
Embed Views
140

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 140

http://mcesa.schoolwires.net 140

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Teacher Effectiveness Methodology Teacher Effectiveness Methodology Presentation Transcript

  • Teacher Effectiveness Methodology Text ADE Educator Evaluation SummitThursday, September 13, 2012
  • The impact of an effective single is the teacher most important factor in student learningThursday, September 13, 2012
  • 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
  • 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
  • If 98% of teachers have the same rating, how can districts use evaluation data for decision making?Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • dual MCESA tools serve purposes (human resources • professional development) for principal teacher and evaluationsThursday, September 13, 2012
  • 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
  • By next year, evaluations must include multiple measuresThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • 33% - of educator 50% effectiveness must be measured by student academic progressThursday, September 13, 2012
  • 50% School Growth 5% Team Growth 5%40% 5% Observation 50% Individual Growth 40%Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Small Group Calibration Exercise Designation Ineffective Partially Effective Effective 1 Effective 2 Highly Effective REIL Growth Composite Rating 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Small Group Calibration Exercise Designation Ineffective Partially Effective Effective 1 Effective 2 Highly Effective REIL Growth Composite Rating 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Merging Observation student academic & progress...Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Determining tool & scale for observationThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Selecting measures & calculations for student growthThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Appropriate in values establishing effectivenessThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Observation Instrument Quantitative Measures Determining Model for Overall EffectivenessThursday, September 13, 2012
  • MCESA ToolsThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Observation Cycle 4 + 16 + 2 = 22Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI Learning Community 18% Learner Engagement 18% Content 23% Instructional Strategies 27% Formative Assessment 14%Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Unadjusted Rubric Weights Within REIL LOI 22 21 20 Learning Community = 4 Element Scores (18%) Number of Element Scores 19 18 17 16 15 Instructional Strategies = 6 Element Scores (27%) 14 13 12 11 10 Formative Assessment = 3 Element Scores (14%) 9 8 7 6 5 Content = 5 Element Scores (23%) 4 3 2 1 Learner Engagement = 4 Element Scores (18%) 0Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Rubric Weights Content Element Weights Learning Community Conceptual Understanding Connections to Instructional Strategies 20% Content 20% Formative Assessment Content Accessibility 20% Content Task Analysis 40% Learner EngagementThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012
  • Peer evaluatorsThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Observation Instrument Quantitative Measures Determining Model for Overall EffectivenessThursday, September 13, 2012
  • Thursday, September 13, 2012