• Like
Bay District Schools Teacher Training
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Bay District Schools Teacher Training

  • 1,907 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,907
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
43
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Welcome. This presentation will provide an overview of the new Bay District Schools Teacher Appraisal System that will be implemented in the 2011-2012 school year.
  • It is important to start with an understanding of the Guiding Principle that underscores all decision-making in Race to the Top efforts: by increasing teacher capacity, there will be an improvement in student achievement. It is the intent of the Teacher Appraisal System to develop and assist teachers so that they can in turn help their students. It is not meant to be a punitive system, but instead one that creates a comprehensive teacher evaluation system with focused data collection that connects to relevant professional development.
  • Stakeholder participation has been important throughout the process of creating a new Teacher Appraisal System. Without input from teachers, administrators and district level staff, the system would not meet the needs of those it is designed to serve. From the very beginning, ABCE has had an active role in the process of establishing the new Teacher Appraisal System and has provided valuable input during all proceedings. Work groups consisting of all stakeholders began meeting in 2010 in order to study the original Memorandum of Understanding from DOE. The MOU is the original contract between the district and state and states all initiatives to which the district must adhere. The Work Group’s primary task was threefold: review what steps the district has taken past that might relate to RTTT, establish our current status with regard to RTTT initiatives, and study plans currently underway that might mesh with RTTT. The Final Scope of Work was delivered to districts in the Fall of 2010. This Final Scope of Work represents the exact plan of action the district will take as it completes RTTT initiatives. Writing Teams were established to complete the Final Scope of Work and this Final Scope of Work was approved by DOE.
  • The first and most pressing task in the Final Scope of Work was to create a new Teacher Appraisal System. In order to meet this need, the Teacher Appraisal System Committee (TASC) was created. TASC consists of 15 members whose responsibility is an important one- create a new Teacher Appraisal System. ABCE members, principals, and district staff built a collegial and professional relationship in order to have open and honest discussions about teacher observations, evaluations, the development of teachers and how the guiding principle of RTTT would be foremost in the creation of the system. To date, the team has met 12 times in day long meetings in order to discuss the current status of the teacher evaluation system and the requirements of Senate Bill 736, the Student Success Act, as well as Race to the Top Initiatives. The Student Success Act places into law many of the initiatives in RTTT such as a student growth component and observations/evaluations for each employee. The team had its primary objective to incorporate these requirements into an appraisal system that would be best for Bay District Schools and deliver this system to DOE by June 1 st . It was decided that the system will consist of four components: the administrator observation/evaluation of effective instructional practices, the development and implementation of the Individual Professional Development Plan (also know as the IPDP), and individual teacher level and school level student growth.
  • For the school year 2011-2012, the four components that make up the Teacher Appraisal system will have the following percentiles: Teacher-level student growth- 40%, school-level student growth- 10%, Administrator observation/evaluation of instructional practices- 35%, IPDP Development- 15%. In order to more fully understand the components, let’s take a closer look at each one individually.
  • The first piece of the Teacher Appraisal System we will study is the Administrator observation/evaluation of instructional practices worth 35% of the Teacher Appraisal System. According to state statute, the Administrator observation/evaluation portion of the Teacher Appraisal System must be based on strong educational principles and contemporary research. In order to accomplish this requirement, TASC studied the current Florida Educator Accomplished Practices. These practices are currently being used by the state of Florida to determine teacher effectiveness; however, the new system must go beyond current practice. In order to make a recommendation that was based on sound research, the committee explored two leading names in teacher evaluation: Robert Marzano and Charlotte Danielson. A three-day academy was attended by the 15 committee members in order to learn about the Marzano Teacher Appraisal System which has been adopted as the state model. Committee members also researched the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching through attendance at a one-day training in Tallahassee, a 2-day training in Okaloosa and other Danielson webinars. Both author’s books were examined as well as other districts who have used the systems. It was discovered that the Marzano model is newly created and relatively untested in the school setting, while many districts across the United States have implemented the Danielson Framework for Teaching. Chicago Public Schools has used the Danielson system in over 90 of their schools and research emerging from the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago confirms the success of the Framework for Teaching in developing teacher capacity. Based on this intense scrutiny of both systems, TASC determined that the Danielson Framework for Teaching would be the best choice for Bay District Schools.
  • According to Charlotte Danielson: An effective system of teacher evaluation accomplishes two things: it ensures quality teaching and it promotes professional learning. The quality of teaching is the single most important determinant of student learning; a school district’s system of teacher evaluation is the method by which it ensures that teaching is of high quality. Therefore, the system developed for teacher evaluation must have certain characteristics; it must be rigorous, valid, reliable and defensible, and must be grounded in a research-based and accepted definition of good teaching. -C. Danielson
  • The Danielson Framework for Teaching consists of 4 domains and 22 components. Domains 2 and 3 consist of 10 observable components that administrators will be evaluating in each teacher observation. They also include critical attributes that help to further illustrate the teacher’s action. Domains 1 and 4 are items that use artifacts such as lesson plans to demonstrate effectiveness.
  • Notice in this sample taken from Domain 2: The Classroom Environment that the component is in a rubric format with Highly Effective being the highest rating and Unsatisfactory being the lowest. Also notice that the Needs Improvement category includes the words “or developing.” The developing term will be used for beginning teachers or teachers new to a content area. The Critical Attributes help to further define the teacher’s actions. Each component in the Framework is explained in a similar rubric fashion. Thus teachers and administrators have a clear understanding of the effective educator practices. For teachers, it helps to guide the educators’ practice; for administrators it helps identify if the educator practices are being implemented. Please note: The complete rubric is available on the Race to the Top website.
  • The Danielson Framework for Teaching begins with a self-assessment against the four domains. This self-assessment then informs the creation of the Individual Professional Development Plan (IPDP). The teacher collects artifacts in domains 1 and 4 in order to show growth in the components. For Domains 2 and 3, the teacher engages in a pre-conference with the administrator. During this pre-conference, the administrator and teacher discuss what components will be observed. The administrator then conducts the observation in order to assess the components. The teacher and administrator then engage in a post-conference where both teacher and observer review and reflect upon evidences gathered during the observation. Following the teacher’s observations, the principal uses the data gathered to inform the final evaluation of instructional practices.
  • The Danielson Framework for Teaching represents a paradigm shift in the way teachers are observed and evaluated; however, its benefits cannot be ignored. The pre and post conferences provide opportunities for open conversations between teachers and administrators about educator practice. Administrators and teachers are able to work collaboratively to look differently at teaching and learning, and teachers are able to become active participants in their observations and evaluations. The evaluation of instructional practices represents 35% of the Teacher Appraisal System. Let’s examine another component of this system.
  • Another component of the new Teacher Appraisal System is the IPDP development and implementation. It is worth 15% of the Teacher Appraisal System. The IPDP will continue to focus on data study of both teacher and student needs and connecting to professional development to help fill those needs. Teachers will complete 6 sections that will be measured by a scoring rubric. The goal of the IPDP is to allow teachers to discover what best suits their needs and the needs of their students and then implement strategies to address those needs.
  • The IPDP will be scored according to a rubric. The sample shown here explains the requirements to receive full points in the section titled, Student Baseline Data. To receive full points, there must be disaggregation and triangulation of a minimum of 3 sources of data. These data points then inform the teacher and help them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of individuals as well as groups of students. Notice how the unsatisfactory category has no disaggregation of data as well as no analysis of strengths and weaknesses. Each section of the IPDP has a similar rubric element in order to clearly define how to receive full points. The IPDP rubric and form are also available on the Race to the Top website. Again, the IPDP development and implementation represents 15% of the Teacher Appraisal System.
  • The final section of the Teacher Appraisal System is the Student Growth component worth 50%. The student growth section is defined by law. “At least 50% of evaluation must be based on student learning growth assessed annually and measured by statewide assessments or, for subjects not measured by statewide assessments, by district assessments.” The 50% is mandatory when there is 3 years of data; however, if 3 years of data are not available, then the number can be adjusted to 40%. For the 2011-2012 school year, Bay District Schools will have less than 3 years of data; therefore, the 50% will be comprised of 40% teacher-level student growth and 10% school-level student growth. Adding to the complexity of this situation is that there are not statewide assessments for every subject, nor does the district have assessments for every subject. We must meet the law’s requirements. How will this be done?
  • The state will present a value-added model for FCAT tested subjects first. This value-added model must be implemented in the 2011-2012 school year. The value-added model is being determined by a state level committee working in conjunction with a value-added consultant. They are to deliver their top selections to the commissioner by June 1 st . In mid-July Bay District Schools will receive FCAT data processed through the value-added model. This will enable us to establish the FCAT proficiency levels of Highly Effective, Effective, Needs Improvement or Developing, and Unsatisfactory. This proficiency level determines a teacher’s score in the 40% teacher and 10% school-level student growth section of the Teacher Appraisal System. Value added models will be delivered from DOE for other state assessments over the next 3 years. So what does Value-Added mean?
  • In short, value added seeks to level the playing field by accounting for differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students assigned to teachers. According to statute, the value-added model must take into account a student’s prior performance and may consider a student’s attendance, disability, or ELL status. However, it cannot be based on gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. The value-added model seeks to identify the teacher’s contribution to student learning and measures the student learning over a period of time. The value-added model has not been selected by DOE so it cannot be more specifically examined at this time.
  • Again, additional value-added models will be developed for state assessments by DOE over the next few years. As these value-added models are delivered, they must be used by those teachers affected. For those teachers for whom there are not value-added models, there must still be a measurement of some sort in place by next year. There are three options: first, use FCAT data for the teacher’s students taking FCAT. For example, a 7 th grade geography teacher will use the FCAT value-added score for the student’s assigned to them as their 40% of teacher-level student growth and school-level FCAT value added for 10%. Another example would be elementary PE, music and art teachers who see all students. They will use the 4 th and 5 th grade value-added FCAT score for those students assigned to them as 50% of their score. It is 50% because they see all students and only 4 th and 5 th grade students will have value-added information. For those students not taking FCAT, there are two other options: create district adopted growth measures or establish learning targets that support the school improvement plan. In order to address these last two options, 6 committees have been formed. These committees will closely examine the data for their particular area as well as the FCAT value-added data released from DOE in order to establish proficiency levels and learning target guidelines.
  • Please recall the pie chart from the beginning of this presentation that displayed the percentiles for the Teacher Appraisal System. The pie chart will differ slightly for classroom teachers and non-classroom teachers.
  • This table displays the measurements that will be in place for the 2011-2012 school year based on different teacher types. Notice that for teachers in 1, 2, and 3, the percentiles stay the same. As explained in the previous slide, it is the student growth content that differs for these teachers.
  • Non-classroom teachers such as media specialists and guidance counselors typically serve and impact all students at their school. As a result, their student growth component will be 50% of the school’s FCAT value-added score. For non-classroom teachers such as school psychologists, staff training specialists and social workers, their student growth component will be based on the district FCAT-value added information. Once the data for all instructional personnel is gathered from the Teacher Appraisal System, how will the data be used?
  • First, Teacher Appraisal System results will be used to inform Professional Development. The Administrator Observation/Evaluation of Instructional Practices provides specific data detailing what teachers need in order to increase their own capacity, while the student growth component provides specific data about what students need. Together these data help district staff offer the most relevant and appropriate professional development, and it helps teachers know what professional development they need to take in order to meet their needs and the needs of their students. The Teacher Appraisal System also provides a comprehensive final evaluation for teachers that is based on many factors.
  • The new Teacher Appraisal System represents a fundamental change in the way teachers are evaluated . Not only is it new content, but it is an influx of enormous amounts of data. How will it all be managed? The first step in the process is to provide training in the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching for administrators and district staff personnel. A member of the Danielson Group will provide Framework Training to personnel during 1 of 2 training sessions. Personnel will attend June 7 th and 8 th or June 14 th and 15 th . The second phase of the training will be held July 19 th and July 26 th . During one of these two sessions, administrators receive training in the New Teacher Appraisal System including the Danielson Framework, the IPDP and materials that will be provided to teachers during school-level school improvement days. The third phase of training will take place in August. During one of these training sessions, personnel will be trained in AIMS- the Appraisal Information Management System. This new system provides stakeholder access to all things related to the Teacher Appraisal System.
  • AIMS (the Appraisal Information Management System) is a web-based system that will provide single-sign on access to the Teacher Appraisal and professional development systems. For the Appraisal System, it provides transparency in the observation/evaluation process because steps between the administrator and teacher are recorded on-line and the system is updated both daily and in real-time. For the professional development system, it provides ease in managing, announcing and registration for professional development. As it is used, the system stores for easy retrieval past appraisal results as well as other information such as in-service and certification information. This system will be instrumental in the management of the Teacher Appraisal System and professional development.
  • Changes over time will occur and adjustments to the Teacher Appraisal system will be made. First, the two sides of the system- the student growth and instructional practices components- must be reflective of each other. If a teacher is rated Highly Effective by their administrator, then the student growth section should mirror that accomplishment. Also as new value-added models are delivered from the state and new district assessments are created or purchased, the teacher-level student growth component becomes more specific. Finally, as the Appraisal System is used and data collected about its effectiveness, the system will be modified to ensure fidelity, validity and appropriateness.
  • When the school year 2011-2012 begins, teachers can expect to receive more training from their Principal. Training materials will help teachers understand the process, paperwork, and decision points in the new Teacher Appraisal System.
  • To receive up-to-date information of the Teacher Appraisal System as well as copies of the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching rubric, the IPDP form and rubric, please go to the Bay District Schools website, www.bay.k12.fl.us and click on the Race to the Top icon. Once at the Race to the Top website, please enter the Project 8 Teacher Appraisal System area. There you will find the Teacher Appraisal System. This concludes the overview of the Teacher Appraisal System as of May 9, 2011. Thank you for your time.

Transcript

  • 1. An Overview of the Teacher Appraisal System Production date: May 11, 2011
  • 2. Guiding Principle
    • By increasing teacher capacity*, there will be an improvement in student achievement
    • Develop and assist teachers
    • Not punitive, but instead creates a comprehensive teacher evaluation system with focused data collection and a connection to relevant professional development
    • *Capabilities, education, abilities
  • 3. Background
    • Stakeholder participation
      • Teachers, Administrators, District-level staff
      • ABCE
    • Work Groups began meeting in 2010
      • Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
      • Original contract between district and state
      • Review previous steps
      • Establish current status
      • Study plans currently underway
    • Writing Teams met in the Fall of 2010
      • Final Scope of Work
      • Plan of action
  • 4. Teacher Appraisal System Committee (TASC)
    • 15 member team
      • ABCE, principals and district staff
      • Collegial relationship for open and honest discussions
      • 12 meetings to date (as of May 9, 2011)
    • Student Success Act and Race to the Top initiatives
      • Student growth component
      • Observations/Evaluations
    • Deliver by June 1st
    • Observation/Evaluation, IPDP development, teacher-level student growth, and school-level student growth
  • 5. Teacher Appraisal System Percentiles
  • 6. Administrator observation/evaluation- 35%
    • According to law the system must be based on strong educational principles and contemporary research
    • Florida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPS)
    • Robert Marzano and Charlotte Danielson
      • Marzano
        • 3-day academy and books
        • State model
        • Relatively untested
      • Danielson
        • Webinar, meetings and books
        • Used throughout the United States
        • Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago
    • Decision: Danielson
  • 7. The Danielson Framework
    • An effective system of teacher evaluation accomplishes two things: it ensures quality teaching and it promotes professional learning. The quality of teaching is the single most important determinant of student learning; a school district’s system of teacher evaluation is the method by which it ensures that teaching is of high quality. Therefore, the system developed for teacher evaluation must have certain characteristics; it must be rigorous, valid, reliable and defensible, and must be grounded in a research-based and accepted definition of good teaching. -C. Danielson
  • 8.
    • Component 1a:
    • Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy
    •  
    • Component 1b:
    • Demonstrating knowledge of students
    •  
    • Component 1c:
    • Setting instructional outcomes
    •  
    • Component 1d:
    • Demonstrating knowledge of resources
    •  
    • Component 1e:
    • Designing coherent instruction
    •  
    • Component 1f:
    • Designing student assessments
    • Component 2a:
    • Creating an environment of respect and rapport
    •  
    • Component 2b:
    • Establishing a culture for learning
    •  
    • Component 2c:
    • Managing classroom procedures
    •  
    • Component 2d:
    • Managing student behavior
    •  
    • Component 2e:
    • Organizing physical space
    • Component 3a:
    • Communicating with students
    •  
    • Component 3b:
    • Using questioning and discussion techniques
    •  
    • Component 3c:
    • Engaging students in learning
    •  
    • Component 3d:
    • Using assessment in instruction
    •  
    • Component 3e:
    • Demonstrating flexibility and responsiveness
    • Component 4a:
    • Reflecting on teaching
    •  
    • Component 4b:
    • Maintaining accurate records
    •  
    • Component 4c:
    • Communicating with families
    •  
    • Component 4d:
    • Participating in a professional community
    •  
    • Component 4e:
    • Growing and developing professionally
    •  
    • Component 4f:
    • Showing professionalism
    Domain Summary for the Framework for Teaching
  • 9. Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement or Developing Unsatisfactory 2a: Creating an environment of respect and rapport [FEAPs (a)2.d.f.h.; (a)3.e.] Classroom interactions among the teacher and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth and caring and sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of development. Students themselves ensure high levels of civility among members of the class. Classroom interactions between teacher and students and among students are polite and respectful, reflecting general warmth and caring, and are appropriate to the cultural and developmental differences among groups of students. Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are generally appropriate and free from conflict but may be characterized by occasional displays of insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to cultural or developmental differences among students Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds, and characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.   Critical Attributes
    • In addition to the characteristics of “effective,”
    • Teacher demonstrates knowledge and caring about individual students’ lives beyond school.
    • The teacher’s response to a student’s incorrect response respects the student’s dignity.
    • When necessary, students correct one another in their conduct toward classmates.
    • Talk between teacher and students and among students is uniformly respectful.
    • Teacher makes connections with individual students.
    • Students exhibit respect for the teacher.
    • During the lesson, the teacher offers encouragement to students as they struggle with complex learning. This may be 2b, expectations.
    • The quality of interactions between teacher and students or among students is uneven, with occasional disrespect.
    • Teacher attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior, with uneven results.
    • Teacher attempts to make connections with individual students, but student reactions indicate that the efforts are not successful.
    • Teacher uses disrespectful talk toward students.
    • Student body language indicates feelings of hurt or insecurity.
    • Teacher does not address disrespectful interactions among students.
    • Teacher displays no familiarity with or caring about individual students’ interests or personalities.
    • Students use disrespectful talk toward one another with no response from the teacher.
    Evidence        
  • 10.  
  • 11. The Danielson Framework
    • Paradigm shift
    • Pre and post conferences provide opportunities for open conversations between teachers and administrators about educator practice
    • Administrators and teachers work collaboratively to look differently at teaching and learning
    • Teachers become active participants in their observations and evaluations
    • Evaluation of instructional practices= 35%
  • 12. IPDP Development-15%
  • 13. IPDP Scoring Rubric Sample
  • 14. Student Growth-50%
    • “ At least 50% of evaluation must be based on student learning growth assessed annually and measured by statewide assessments or, for subjects not measured by statewide assessments, by district assessments.” (Student Success Act)
    • 50% with 3 years of data
    • 40% with less than 3 years of data
    • 2011-2012 less than 3 years of data
      • 40% Teacher-Level Student Growth
      • 10% School-Level Student Growth
  • 15. FCAT-tested subjects
    • Value-added model
      • Implemented 2011-2012
      • State Committee
      • June 1 st- Commissioner selects model
      • Mid-July district receives information
        • Used to determine proficiency levels (HE, E, NI/D, U)
        • Teacher-level=40%
        • School-level=10%
      • Additional value-added provided over the next 3 years
  • 16. Value-Added Continued
    • Level the playing field by accounting for differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students assigned to teachers
    • Must take into account prior performance
    • May consider attendance, disability or ELL status
    • Cannot be based on gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status
    • Identify teacher contribution to student learning
    • Measure student learning using student-level test scores collected over a period of time
  • 17. Non-FCAT personnel
    • Use value-added models as they are delivered from the state
    • Use FCAT data for students assigned to teacher
      • 7 th grade geography
        • 40% -students assigned to them
        • 10% -school
      • Elementary PE, music, and art
        • 50% -students assigned to them
        • They see all students
        • Only 4 th and 5 th grade have value-added information
    • Create district adopted growth measures
    • Establish learning targets
    • Six committees
      • Special Diploma
      • Vocational Education/Industry Certification
      • ESE-Pre K
      • K-2, 3 rd grade
      • IB, AP, AICE, DE
      • Learning Target Guidelines
  • 18. Teacher Appraisal System Pie Chart
  • 19.  
  • 20.  
  • 21. Professional Development
    • Teacher Appraisal System results inform Professional Development
    • Observation/Evaluation= Teacher Needs
    • Student Growth = Student Needs
    • Administrators and district staff offer relevant and appropriate professional development
    • Helps teachers know what professional development they need to take to meet their needs and needs of students
    • Provides final evaluation based on many factors
  • 22. How will this be managed?
    • Fundamental change in the way teachers are evaluated
    • Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching Training
      • Administrators and district staff personnel
      • Danielson Group
        • June 7 th and 8 th
        • June 14 th and 15 th
    • Teacher Appraisal System training
        • July 19 th or July 26 th
    • AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System)
        • August
  • 23. AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System)
    • Single-sign on
    • Provides transparency in the observation/evaluation process
    • Ease in managing, announcing, registration for professional development
    • Stores for easy retrieval
      • Past appraisal results
      • In-service and certification information
    • Instrumental in the management of the Teacher Appraisal System and professional development
  • 24. Adjustments
    • Changes over time will occur
    • Student growth and instructional practices should mirror one another
    • Value-added models from the state
    • District assessments
      • Teacher-level becomes more specific
    • System effectiveness
      • Fidelity, validity, and appropriateness
  • 25. Additional Training
    • Teachers receive training from Principal
    • Training materials provided
      • Process
      • Paperwork
      • Decision Points
  • 26. Conclusion
    • www.bay.k12.fl.us