Teacher effect[1]

Teacher Effectiveness
and Support for Growth

Using meaningful
evaluation to
increase
effectiveness of
teachers and
leaders

Overview for Today
Rationale - MET Research - Standards 6 & 8 - Status - Support - MSLs

1. Rationale 4. Status
Why we are doing this? Determining educator
effectiveness status

2. MET Research 5. Support
Key ideas from recent Professional development
research
for improving practice

3. Standards 6 & 8 6. MSLs
How we’ll include student Measuring growth in
growth in educator currently non-tested
evaluations subjects

Draft – March 2012. Check http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ready/resources/ for Updates to this Presentation

Overview
▲
The central focus of READY is by enabling and ensuring
improving student learning ... great teaching.


What is our goal?
▲
Before Teaching
and Leading
Great Develop effective teachers
Teachers and leaders in preparation
programs
Student and
Readiness Leaders
Achievement An effective
and growth for teacher in every
all students classroom and During Teaching
leader in every and Leading
school Use meaningful evaluation
and professional
development to increase
effectiveness of teachers
and leaders

What is our goal?
▲

Big Question:
What is the best
approach to
Educator Evaluation
and how do we get
NC there?


Measures of Effective Teaching
▲


Measures of Effective Teaching
▲

This research suggests:

•Multiple measures are important.
•Including student growth improves
objectivity of evaluation.


Re-creation of chart from Gathering Feedback For Teaching, http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf

Observation + Other Measures
▲
Months of Learning Gained or Lost
State Math State ELA

Observation Tool Top 25% +1.2 +.2
Bottom 25% -1.4 -.4

Observation Tool Top 25% +2.8 +.7
+ Student Survey
Bottom 25% -2 -.9

Observation Tool Top 25% +4.5 +1.2
+ Student Survey
+ Growth (Value-Add) Bottom 25% -3.1 -1.3


What We Have
Evaluation Some Assessments
Tools to Measure Growth From the MET…

End of Grade
End of Course
Observation

VoCATs Tools
Standards 1-7 Standard 8 Assessments to

Measure
End of Grade Growth
End of Course
VoCATs  Student Survey
Standards 1-5 Standard 6
Exploring
Pilot in 29 LEAs
Draft – March 2012. Check http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ready/resources/ for Updates to this Presentation in 2011-12

What We Need
• Standards 6
What do we need?and 8
We need a state-adopted growth model
and a fair 6 & 8 rating strategy

• Status
We need an overall method to determine
educator effectiveness status

• Measures of Student Learning (MSLs)
For those grades and subjects that are currently non-
tested, we need ways to measure growth


Standards 6 & 8 – The Basics
▲
Teachers

1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish
Leadership Environment
Know
Content
Facilitate
Learning
Reflect on Contribute
Practice to Academic
Success

Principals (and other Administrators)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Human External Micro- Academic
Strategic Instructional
Strategic Cultural Managerial
Resource Development political Achievement
Leadership
Leadership Leadership Leadership Leadership


Growth Model
▲
Teachers

Standards 6 and 8

6
Contribute
to Academic are measures of
Success

Principals
Academic
Growth
8
Academic
Achievement
Leadership
Achievement
Leadership


Growth Model
▲
Teachers
We will use

6
Contribute
to Academic
Success
Educator Value-Added
Principals Assessment System
Academic EVAAS

8
Academic
Achievement
Leadership
Achievement
Leadership
for standards 6 & 8 when possible


Growth Model
▲
Teachers
How do Value-Added models work?

6
Contribute •They measure growth by predicting how well a
to Academic
student will perform on an assessment.
Success

How do they predict how well
Principals the student will do?
Academic •They look at previous test scores and estimate

8
Academic
Achievement
Leadership
Achievement how well the student should perform at the end of
Leadership the year.
Every student must grow based on where they
start.

Ratings
▲
Teachers

6
Contribute
to Academic
Success
How will the ratings on
Principals Standards 6 & 8 work?
Academic

8
Academic
Achievement
Leadership
Achievement
Leadership


Principal Rating Categories
▲
Principals

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Human Micro- Academic
Strategic Instructional Cultural Managerial External
Resource political Achievement
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Leadership Leadership Development
Leadership Leadership Leadership

5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories
Not Demonstrated Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Developing Meets Expected Growth
Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth
Accomplished
Distinguished


Teacher Ratings Categories
▲
Teachers

1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish Know Facilitate Reflect on Contribute
Leadership Environment Content Learning Practice to Academic
Success

5 Rating Categories 3 Rating Categories
Not Demonstrated Does Not Meet Expected Growth
Developing Meets Expected Growth
Proficient Exceeds Expected Growth
Accomplished
Distinguished


Ratings
▲
Teachers

1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate Establish Know Facilitate Reflect on Contribute
Leadership Environment Content Learning Practice to Academic
Success

5 Rating Categories 3 Ratings Categories
Why the difference?
Identifying only three rating categories on standard 6
& 8 improves certainty of categorization.


Teacher Ratings in 2011-12
▲

6
Yearly Rating
Teacher School-wide •Does Not Meet
Expected Growth
EVAAS Growth EVAAS Growth
•Meets Expected Growth
Weighted Average •Exceeds Expected Growth

Why is school-wide EVAAS growth included?
• To encourage collaboration and collective
ownership of overall outcomes
• Teacher = 70% and School-wide = 30%

Note: In 2011-12, teachers without individual EVAAS growth will get
school-wide growth for Standard 6.

Teacher Ratings in 2012-13
▲
We are piloting some additional elements for possible
inclusion in Standard 6 in 2012-13
Possible additional elements
Teacher Student
EVAAS Surveys
Growth
(?)
School-

6
Team Yearly Rating
wide EVAAS •Does Not Meet
Expected Growth
EVAAS Growth (?) •Meets Expected Growth
Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth

Weighted Average

Principal Ratings
▲
• Standard 8 rating will be determined using
school-wide EVAAS growth

School-wide
8
Yearly Rating
•Does Not Meet
EVAAS Expectations
•Meets Expected Growth
Growth •Exceeds Expected Growth


Ratings
▲
Teachers 1 2 3 4 5 6
Demonstrate
Leadership
Establish
Environment
Know
Content
Facilitate
Learning
Reflect on
Practice
Contribute
to Academic
Success

Principals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strategic Instructional Cultural Human Managerial External Micro- Academic
Leadership Leadership Leadership Resource Leadership Development political Achievement

Key Note on Ratings
•Every educator is evaluated every year
•Each standard and rating stands on its own
(1 out of 6, not 1/6)
•Ratings are used to create professional development plans each year
•Ratings are used to determine status


Status
▲

What is the difference
between Ratings and
Status?


Status
▲

Ratings Status
• Teachers • A single overall status that
6 separate ratings to help is determined once a
teachers grow each year principal or teacher has
three years of growth
• Principals data to populate 6 or 8
8 separate ratings to help
principals grow each year • Categories for Status
1. In Need of Improvement
2. Effective
3. Highly Effective


Status and Standard 6 & 8
▲

• An educator receives an
effectiveness status only once she
has 3 years of data on
standards 6 or 8

• A 3-year rolling average of growth
data from standards 6 or 8 is used as
part of determining overall status

3-Year Rolling Average Teacher
▲
Rating from Rating from Rating from
2 years 1 year this
ago ago year 1.0 + 0.8 + 1.2
Standard Standard Standard
Contribute 3
to Academic
6 6 Success
6 = 1.0
1.0 0.8 1.2 Met Expected Growth
Met Did not meet Met 3- year average rating on
Expected Expected Expected standard 6 for
Growth Growth Growth
determining status

Note: A similar methodology applies to principals as well.


Status
▲

So once an educator has a
three-year average rating
for Standard 6 or 8, how is
status determined?


Status
▲
• The Three Status Categories are

1. In Need of Improvement
2. Effective

3. Highly Effective


Principal Status
▲
In Need of Highly
Effective
Improvement Effective

Standards 1-7 Any rating Proficient Accomplished
In the year lower than or Higher or Higher
on Standards on Standards
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strategic
Leadership
Instructional
Leadership
Cultural
Leadership
Human
Resource
Leadership
Managerial
Leadership
External
Development
Leadership
Micro-
political
Leadership
proficient
1-7 1-7

And/Or And And

Standard 8 Does Not Meets or Exceeds
Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected
Expected Expected Growth
)/ 3
) 2 years
ago 8 8
+ 1 ago +
year
8
This
Growth Growth
year


Teacher Status
▲
In Need of Highly
Effective
Improvement Effective

Standards 1-5 Any rating Proficient Accomplished
In the year lower than or Higher or Higher
on Standards
1 2 3 4 5Establish Know Facilitate
proficient on Standards
Demonstrate Reflect on
Leadership Environment Content Learning Practice
1-5 1-5

And/Or And And

Standard 6 Does Not Meets or Exceeds
Three-year rolling average Meet Exceeds Expected
Expected Expected Growth
)/ 3
) 6
2 years
ago 6
+ 1 ago +
year
6
This
year Growth Growth

What will teachers see?
▲
• Ratings on Standards 1 – 5 of the Educator
Evaluation System (as recorded in online tool)

• Standard 6 rating (current year and 2 prior years)

• Three-year rolling average of student growth
values and accompanying Standard 6 rating
(for Status determination)

• Overall Effectiveness Status


North Carolina Educator Evaluation System Evaluation Summary Sheet
Name: Martha Washington School: Independence Elementary School
LEA: Freedom County Schools Licensure: Career-Status
Overall Status: In Need of Improvement
Standard One: Teachers demonstrate leadership.
Not Demonstrated Developing Proficient Accomplished Distinguished

Standard Two: Teachers establish a respectful environment.

Standard Three: Teachers know the content they teach.

DRAFT

Standard Four: Teachers facilitate learning for their students.

Standard Five: Teachers reflect on their practice.

Standard Six: Teachers contribute to the academic success of students.
*Only three-year rolling average is used to determine overall status*
Year One (2009 – 2010) Year Two (2010 – 2011) Year Three (2011 – 2012) Three-Year Rolling Average*
Individual Student Growth: -1.8 Individual Student Growth: 1.2 Individual Student Growth: .7
School-wide Student Growth: .1
Year One Growth: -1.23
Year Two Growth: 1.11
Year Three Growth: .76
.21
Does not Meets Exceeds Does not Meets Exceeds Does not Meets Exceeds Does not Meets Exceeds
meet expected expected meet expected expected meet expected expected meet expected expected
expected growth growth expected growth growth expected growth growth expected growth growth
growth growth growth growth

Overa In Need of Improvement Effective Highly Effective
ll
Status

Support for Teachers
▲

How will we support
Teachers in using the
evaluation system?


Support for Teachers
▲
• Increased professional development (PD) and
support in content and pedagogy
• Common Core & Essential Standards
• Data Literacy
• Pedagogy for engaging students

• State PD Leads working with Local PD Leads to
create strong, lasting communities of practice

• Online PD resources

Support
▲

How will we support
Principals in using the
evaluation system?


Support for Principals
▲
• Increased training and support in use of the
instrument (Standards 1-5)
• increased consistency/reliability
• better information for teachers

• Increased professional development regarding
instructional leadership and other management
practices


Measures of Student Learning
▲

But we can’t measure
growth for everybody.
What about the non-
tested subjects?


▲

are being designed for non-tested
subjects for district use to populate
Standard 6


Guiding Principles
▲
• NC’s experienced teachers know their students
and their content

• NC teachers are best-qualified to provide input on
meaningful assessment of currently non-tested
grades and subjects

• Valid measures of what students know and are
able to do will likely exceed traditional multiple-
choice assessment


What MSLs Are
▲
• Measures of what students know and are able to
do after completing a course or grade

• Tightly linked to the instruction that a teacher
delivers

• One part of how North Carolina will evaluate the
effectiveness of its teachers

• Similar to the common summative assessments
that many districts already have in place


What MSLs Are Not
▲
• Multiple-choice standardized exams for all areas
of the Standard Course of Study
• Assessments that need to be delivered with the
same level of security as EOCs and EOGs
• Designed without teacher input
• The only source of data used to make decisions
about a teacher’s effectiveness
• Part of the school accountability model


Four Buckets of Assessments for Growth
▲

A B C D

EOCs, Category Category Locally
EOGs One of Two of Developed
and MSLs MSLs Courses
VoCATS With appropriate With the heavy
resources and emphasis on
time, these MSLs performance,
can be validated these MSLs
psychometrically cannot be
validated
psychometrically


A Picture of Assessment
▲

1 2 3 4


Three-Phase Process
▲

1 2 3 4


Three-Phase Process
▲

Rob Jackson
@CHSPrincipal

#Ready2012
#ncadmin
#edchat
#cpchat


Getting READY


Teacher effect[1]

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Teacher effect[1]

Similar to Teacher effect[1] (20)

Teacher effect[1]

Editor's Notes