The document provides an overview of the teacher appraisal system being developed in response to state legislation. Key aspects include: 1) The system is being designed by a committee using the Danielson Framework for Teaching model to evaluate teachers based on observations, student growth data, and professional development goals. 2) Teacher evaluations will be 35% based on administrator observations, 15% on individual professional development plans, and 50% on student growth measures including state assessments and district-created measures. 3) Student growth will be calculated using value-added models for state-tested subjects and district-created learning targets for non-tested subjects, accounting for at least 40-50% of evaluations initially. 4)

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

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

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