Educator evaluation accountability
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Educator evaluation accountability

on

  • 339 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
339
Views on SlideShare
192
Embed Views
147

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 147

http://agsdinservice.weebly.com 102
http://www.weebly.com 45

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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
  • Welcome everyone! It is good to see all of you…{Introduce yourself} Today, we will be sharing information about EED’s new initiative: Preparing College-, Career-, & Culturally- Ready Graduates. In this session, we will be discussing Accountability. Accountability addresses both the Educator Accountability and the new Districts & Schools accountability. Educator Accountability will be the focus of this presentation.More precisely, we will be sharing with you an overview of information concerning the recent changes made to the Educator Evaluation Regulations by the State Board of Education.
  • The recommendations of these stakeholders led to the adoption of the new educator evaluation regulations by the State Board of Education in December 2012. A copy of this timeline is in your packet. It provides the 30,000 ft. view of what needs to happen in the next few years and highlight the deadlines set out in regulations.The regulations required that local school boards adopt an educator evaluation system consistent with the new regulations by July 1, 2015.Which will lead to the full implementation for the 2015-2016 school yearBy July 10, 2016, the regulations requires that district report to the department the overall ratings of the educators for the first time.
  • With the new adoption, the State Board of Education reinforced the purpose of educator evaluation.As in the past, the State Board emphasized that assisting the educator to grow professionally and the improvement of instruction are the two most important purposes of educator evaluation. This focus clearly aligns with the work of Marzano and Danielson. Constructive feedback, professional learning, and self-reflection can be effective catalysts for the improvement of an educator’s practice. However, if an educator’s practice doesn’t move in a positive direction, the third purpose offered by the State Board, points to reassignment or non-retention of the educator.
  • In an attempt to streamline everyone’s understanding, we have divide the requirements into three categories: Information Sources Evaluation Components, and Results & Actions
  • Moving from left to right, we will start with information sources.Information sources are broken down into qualitative and quantitative elements. Qualitative information has traditionally been the primary source for educator evaluation. I am sure that all of us have experienced observations throughout our careers. A few of us may have also experienced student & parent surveys, self-assessments, or portfolios as part of our evaluation.Observations continue to be a requirement. However, the new regulations encourages the use of a national recognized observational framework.Information gathered from stakeholders, like students, parents, and other teachers, have been a requirement in an educator’s evaluation since 1996. The new regulations further expands the statutory requirements by requiring the district to notify stakeholders of this opportunity. To this end, a form or an electronic means must be provided to the stakeholders for the purpose of gathering information concerning an educator’s performance.While it is not mandated, the new regulations continue to encourage districts to consider the use of surveys and other information sources as part of their evaluation systems.
  • A major change to the evaluation requirements is the use of quantitative information, specifically measures of student growth including statewide assessments. With the input of the educators being evaluated, the district must select two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth. Using the selected measures of student growth, the district must also establish standards and performance levels for educator in regards to student learning. Educators subject to the evaluation system must participate in this process as well. Objective & measurable criteria must be developed to ensure that the data used to rate the educator’s performance in the area of student growth accurately reflects the efforts of the educator being evaluated. For example, a district may want to establish a threshold for student’s attendance. If appropriate statewide assessment data is available, the district must use that information in the evaluations of teachers and administrators who have responsible for the content assessed. As our current SBAs are not vertically aligned, they are not appropriate to use for the purpose of educator evaluation. However, when we move to a new statewide assessment system aligned to our new state standards, the resulting data should be appropriate for the use in teacher’s and administrator’s evaluations.Both teachers and administrators must have information gathered from measures of student growth included as part of their evaluations. However, this is not a requirement for special service providers.
  • Thank you for sharing your thoughts with each other concerning information sources for educator evaluation. Let’s move on to the connection of the information sources to the required evaluation components. The information gathered through observation, parent and student input, and selected measures of student growth will be use to inform each component of an educator’s evaluation. For a teacher, the new regulations require the district to evaluate teacher content standards 2 though 8. These seven-required teacher content standards have not changed. (It is worth noting the standard concerning the teacher’s philosophy is no longer required as part of the evaluation.) This graphic illustrates teacher evaluation. For an administrator, the standards that must be assessed are the 10 administrator content standards which are also found in regulation. For special service providers, district must establish standards that address the context of the individuals job requirements. In addition to the content standards, the new requirement include the consideration of the cultural standards for educators. Districts are expected to incorporate the four adopted cultural standards for educators into the existing content standards. For the most part, the qualitative information sources will be used to evaluate the content & cultural standards. As mentioned before, for teachers and administrators, the measures of students growth must be used to determine the performance in the area of student learning. Districts will work with the educators to determine appropriate growth targets and establish the performance standard for student learning. For each standard, including student learning, the district must rate the educator as exemplary, proficient, basic or unsatisfactory. The rating on each standard will determine the actions that must take place as a result of the evaluation.
  • Once the result of the evaluation has been finalized, the actions that must be taken by the district are described in the new regulationsIn the case of a teacher who is determined to be proficient or higher on seven (7) standards and does not have an unsatisfactory rating, the teacher would use the results of the evaluation to focus her professional learning. The district would use the results of all their educators’ evaluations to inform the district’s professional development plan.In an educator is rated as basic on two or more standards, the district must provide direct support to the educator. The direct support may take the form of a Plan of Professional Growth if the district elects to incorporate a formalized plan into their evaluation system. If an educator does not make the improvements outlined in a Plan for Professional growth, the district may move the educator to a Plan of Improvement. For an educator who receives an unsatisfactory rating on any one standard, including the standard for student learning, the district must place the educator on a plan of improvement as described in statutes.
  • Here is an example of a teacher’s performance that requires a plan of improvement. If, at the conclusion of the plan, the teacher’s performance does not meet district standards, the district may non-retain the teacher.
  • In this examples, the teacher received two ratings of basic. This will require the district to offer support to the teacher.If the district has chosen to include a Plan of Professional Growth in itsevaluation system, the support provided by the district would be formally outlined in a plan. If, at the conclusion of the plan, the educator’s performance is still not proficient or higher, the district may place the educator on a plan of improvement that could lead to non-retention.
  • In this examples, the teacher received one ratings of basic. The teacher should use the information from the evaluation to determine individualized professional learning focus for the following school year.The district should use the evaluation information to plan for district- or school- wide trainings or inservice.
  • The overall performance ratings are the same as those for the individual standards within the evaluation systems: Exemplary, Proficient, Basic, and Unsatisfactory.A district may not give an educator an overall performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or lower on one or more of the content standards or other criteria for which evaluation is required.
  • The district must weight the student learning data in the teacher and administrator’s overall rating according to the following schedule:SY 2015‐16, at least 20% SY 2016‐17, at least 20% SY 2017‐18 at least 35% SY 2018‐19 and after, at least 50%
  • For the 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 school years, the overall rating calculation would resemble this slide, with the student learning data consisting of 20% of the overall rating. Districts have discretion to determine the weight of the other standards or even to include other elements into their overall rating calculation.

Educator evaluation accountability Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Preparing College, Career, & Culturally Ready Graduates Standards Assessment Accountability for Educators for Districts & Schools Parents & Community Support 1
  • 2. Timeline 2
  • 3. Purpose  Help the educator grow professionally  Improve the effectiveness of instruction  Relate to the future employment of the educator 3
  • 4. Educator Evaluation Requirements Information Sources Observations Information from parents, students, et c. Other information (as determined by the district) Unsatisfactory on 1 or more standard Understanding Student Needs Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice *Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments Plan of Improvement Differentiation Cultural Standards (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) Results & Actions Evaluation Components Student Learning Standard Performance Rating on each of the eight (8) standards. Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Exemplary Basic on 2 or more standards Proficient or higher on 7 standards and no unsatisfactory ratings. __________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. ________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district) 4
  • 5. Information Sources Districts: Qualitative Observations (district may select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) Information from parents, students, etc. Other information (as determined by the district) • may select a nationally recognized observational framework approved by the department or continue to use the observation tools they have previously adopted. • must have a procedure and a form to collect information concerning an educator’s performance from students, parents, and other stakeholders. • may use other information like surveys, self-assessments, portfolios, etc. to gather information concerning an educator’s performance. 5
  • 6. Information Sources Districts must: Quantitative Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments • Select appropriate measures of student growth with the input of the educators being evaluated. • Establish standards and performance levels for student learning data. • Develop procedures based on objective & measurable criteria to ensure that data used accurately reflects student growth based on the educator performance. • Use statewide assessment data for teachers who provide instruction in the content areas assessed. 6
  • 7. Aligning Information Sources to Evaluation Components Information Sources Observations (district may Educator Evaluation Components Understanding Student Needs Information from parents, students, etc. Assessment Other information (as determined by the district) Two to four valid, reliable measures of student growth including statewide assessments Content Knowledge & Instruction Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Cultural Standards select a nationally recognized framework approved by the department) Differentiation Performance Rating on each of the eight (8) standards. Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Exemplary Student Learning Standard 7
  • 8. Levels of Performance Performance Levels Standards Performance Rating on each of the 8 standards. E P B U Understanding Student Needs Differentiation Unsatisfactory (U) Basic (B) Proficient (P) Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Exemplary (E) Professional Practice Student Learning 8
  • 9. Linking Levels of Performance to Results & Actions Performance Levels Standards Understanding Student Needs E P B Unsatisfactory on 1 or more standard U Basic on 2 or more standards Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning Plan of Improvement Proficient or higher on 7 standards and no unsatisfactory ratings ______________ Exceeds the districts performance standards (as determined by the district) District Support OR Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Professional Learning Focus for district & teacher. _______________ Annual Evaluation Alternative for the following school year (as determined by the district) 9
  • 10. Results & Actions Performance Levels Standards Understanding Student Needs E P B U Plan of Improvement Differentiation Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community If, at the conclusion of a plan of improvement, the educator’s performance does not meet district standards the educator may be nonretained. Professional Practice Student Learning 10
  • 11. Results & Actions Performance Levels Standards E P B U District Support or Understanding Student Needs Differentiation A Plan of Professional Growth (optional) Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice If, at the conclusion of a plan of professional growth, the educator’s performance is not proficient or exemplary, the district may place the educator on a plan of improvement. Student Learning 11
  • 12. Results & Actions Performance Levels Standards Understanding Student Needs Differentiation E P B U Professional Learning Focus for teachers & district Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Professional Practice Student Learning 12
  • 13. Overall Rating & Student Learning Data  A district will evaluate whether an educator’s overall performance is exemplary, proficient, basic, or unsatisfactory.  A district may not give an educator an overall performance rating of proficient or higher if the educator has been evaluated to be performing at a level of basic or lower on one or more of the content standards or other criteria for which evaluation is required. 13
  • 14. Overall Rating & Student Learning Data A district shall include student learning data in teacher and administrator’s overall rating according to the following schedule: • SY 2015‐16 & SY 2016‐17, at least 20% • SY 2017‐18 at least 35% • SY 2018‐19 and after, at least 50% 14
  • 15. District Reporting School Year 2015-2016 & School Year 2016-2017 Student Learning Standard Alaska Teacher Standards Understanding Student Needs Content Knowledge & Instruction Assessment Learning Environment Family & Community Cultural Standards Differentiation Student Learning Standard 20% Rating on each of the 7 Content Standards. Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory Overall Content Rating Standard Exemplary Proficient Student Learning Standards 80% Basic Unsatisfactory Professional Practice Proficient or higher on all standards Basic or Unsatisfa ctory on any one standard 15 Exemplary Proficient Basic Unsatisfactory