Region 1 Board share


Published on

Slides from Sarah Barzee, Sharon Fuller, and Jonathan Costa at the Region 1 educational issues forum.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This is the defining challenge of our times in public school.
  • Continued investment in a print-based infrastructure and the lack of strategic transitional planning for a complete move to digital are ultimately counter-productiveboth educationally and fiscally.
  • The evaluation framework consists of multiple measures to paint an accurate and comprehensive picture of teacher performance. All teachers will be evaluated in four components, grouped in two major categories.SEED pages 82 - 83
  • Talk about goals
  • Pg. 94 SEED – see Footnote:Peer feedback is permitted as per CT Guidelines, but not included in state SEED Model.Part of process is whole school but leads to one of the goals for teacher
  • In this session, the option to base 5% on whole school learning indicator will be discussed, and the option to use student feedback surveys will be discussed with the discussion of how to base 10% on parent feedback
  • For districts that include whole-school student learning indicators in teacher evaluations, a teacher’s indicator ratings shall be represented by the aggregate rating for multiple student learning indicators established for the administrator’s evaluation rating.For districts that include focus groups, interviews, or teachers’ own surveys, these may be used to collect information from students if they adhere to established
  • The evaluation framework consists of multiple measures to paint an accurate and comprehensive picture of teacher performance. All teachers will be evaluated in four components, grouped in two major categories.SEED pages 82 - 83
  • Region 1 Board share

    1. 1. © JPC Sr. 2012CSDE &EDUCATIONCONNECTIONThe Current ContextOf Connecticut PublicSchool Reform and PolicySarah Barzee, Ph.D, Sharon Fuller,and Jonathan P. Costa, Sr.April 24, 2013
    2. 2. The MissionPrepareEVERY studentfor learning,life, and workin the21st century.© Corwin Press - 2011
    3. 3. © Corwin Press - 2011The world is changed…1. It is flat.2. It is digital.3. It is constantlychanging.4. It is increasinglyunforgiving to thosewho are unskilled.
    4. 4. The BraveNew World© Corwin Press - 2011The cultureserved bythis model ofteaching andlearning isgone.
    5. 5. Instruction Will/Should Change…• Less paper, more pixels.• Less single source,more crowd source.• Less routine,more personalization.
    6. 6. Instruction Will/Should Change…• Less compliance,more engagement.• Less consuming,more producing.• Less about how much,more about how well.
    7. 7. The “Genetic History” of Reform in ConnecticutWhich Leads To© JPC Sr. 2012Which Leads ToWhich Leads ToWhich Leads To
    8. 8. The Evolution of Educational Reform© EC 2012FocusLearning GoalsAssessmentProtocolsAccountabilityTeacher PrepCurriculumTesting ToolsStudent AbilitiesInstructional FocusInputs/OutputsUniversal AccessLocally DeterminedRank and SortNo News isGood NewsGet A DegreeTable of ContentsPencil & PaperGrouped &LabeledTeacher DependentReady for K59.9 to leaveUniversal ProficiencyState by StateTests for ALLLabel Failing SchoolsCertifications &BESTState Standards &FrameworksPencil & Paper WithPerformance TasksIntegrated (N=40)Standards AlignedNeed for Pre-SchoolSkill DemonstrationsUniversal Measures46 State Consortia(Math, LA, Science)Smarter Balance(IPI) for AllMeasuring EveryDistrict, School andTeacherCertifications, TEAM,and SEEDMulti-StateUnified StandardsDigital WithPerformance TasksIntegrated &Scrutinized (N=20)Common Core AlignedAnd Digitally SupportedPre-K and Full-K StandardsDemonstrations & TestsAreas of Before 1986 NCLB 2001 PA12-116 2012
    9. 9. 21stCenturySkillsCommunicateEffectivelyAdaptable& CreativeHigher-OrderThinkingPersonalResponsibilityInformationLiteracyIndependent&CollaborativeRememberthe Mission…is aboutmorethanjustCCSS© Corwin Press - 2011
    10. 10. BEWARE ofthe UnintendedConsequenceLifeequalsa test.
    11. 11. © JPC Sr. 2012LifeSchool/TestsWorkCommonCore & 21stCenturySkills
    12. 12. Assessment& DataValue what youmeasure,measure whatyou value.© Corwin Press - 2011
    13. 13. The Engagement& Learning EquationDegree of Student ControltimesOrder of Conceptual DifficultyplusContent FluencyequalsInstructional Value© Corwin Press - 2011
    14. 14. Keep this in mind when we talk about SEED and you think ofhow you will implement the Guidelines, from a policy andpractice position, never forgetthe motivation behind your efforts.© JPC Sr. 2012
    15. 15. 15Orientation to Teacher Evaluation2012-20134/24/2013
    16. 16. …we need to give accurate, useful informationabout teachers’ strengths and developmentareas; and…we need to provide opportunities for growthand recognition.To support teachers . .4/24/2013 16
    17. 17.  Consider multiple standards-based measuresof performance Promote both professional judgment andconsistency Foster dialogue about student learning Encourage aligned professionaldevelopment, coaching and feedback tosupport teacher growth Ensure feasibility of implementation4/24/2013 17
    18. 18. Teacher Evaluation Components4/24/2013 18
    19. 19. Illustration of Core Requirements of Teacher EvaluationStudent Growthand Development(45%)Whole-schoolStudent LearningIndicators orStudent Feedback(5%)Observations ofPerformance andPractice (40%)Peer or ParentFeedback (10%)Practice Rating(50%)OutcomeRating (50%)All of these factors are combined to reach your final annualrating (as described in the Connecticut guidelines).4/24/2013 19
    20. 20. Teacher Evaluation ProcessThe annual evaluation process for a teacher shall at least include, butnot be limited to, the following steps, in order:1. Goal-setting and Planning Orientation on process Teacher Reflection and Goal Setting Goal-setting Conference2. Mid-year Check-ins3. End-of-year Summative Review4/24/2013 20
    21. 21. Teacher Evaluation ProcessBy Nov. 15, 2012 Jan/Feb By June 304/24/2013 21
    22. 22. • Teacher sets 1 – 3 goals aligned to a teacherpractice observation model.• Goals provide focus for the observations andfeedback conversations.Observation of Performance and Practice Goals(40%)4/24/2013 22
    23. 23. • Ten percent (10%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall be based onparent feedback, including surveys.• Process focuses on:– Conducting whole-school parent survey– Determining school-level parent goals based on surveyfeedback– Teacher and evaluator identifying one related parentengagement goal– Measuring progress– Determining teacher’s summative ratingTeacher Evaluation Process:Component # 2- Parent Feedback4/24/2013 23
    24. 24. Half of a teacher’s evaluation will be based onStudent Related Indicators50% of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on their contributionto student academic progress, at the school and classroom level.This is comprised of two components:(a) Student growth and development (45%) as determined bythe teacher’s student learning objectives (SLOs)(b) Whole-school measure of student learning or studentfeedback (5%) as determined by aggregate student learningindicators or student surveys
    25. 25. Five percent (5%) of a teacher’s evaluation shall bebased on whole-school student learning indicatorsor student feedback.Districts decide to use whole-school student learningindicators, student feedback, or a combination of thetwo.Each teacher sets one measureable goal for thiscomponent.Teacher Evaluation Process: Component # 44/24/2013 25
    26. 26.  Multiple Student Learning Indicators(45%) One half (22.5%) of the indicators of academic growthand development used as evidence of whethergoals/objectives are met shall be based on: The state test for those teaching tested grades andsubjects (or) For other grades and subject areas anotherstandardized indicator where available.Teacher Evaluation Process:Component # 3-Growth and Development4/24/2013 26
    27. 27.  Multiple Student Learning Indicators(45%) (continued) For the other half (22.5%) of the indicators ofacademic growth and development, there maybe:a. A maximum of one additional standardizedindicator, if there is mutual agreement, subject tothe local dispute resolution procedure.b. A minimum of one non-standardized indicator.Teacher Evaluation Process:Component # 3 continued4/24/2013 27
    28. 28. Teacher Evaluation Components4/24/2013 28