Transcript Frequently Asked Questions Regarding SCCS Teacher

Frequently Asked Questions
Regarding SCCS Teacher
Evaluation PD 9/20/12
*Rationale about the process
*How classroom and non-classroom observations are made
*Communicating the Lesson Objective
*What, if any, differentiation will occur in the process
*How summative ratings are determined
*How results of evaluations will be used
*What is happening in other districts
*What will happen in future years with evaluation
FAQS ABOUT THE EVALUATION PROCESS IN THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN AND SCCS SPECIFICALLY
New State of Michigan law requires changes to the teacher
evaluation process. The language of the law can be viewed at:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jsk5jhfghkvwoibeykieieb5))/mile
g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-380-1249
The portion of the evaluation based on student growth results will
increase by law to 25% in 2013-2014, 40% in 2014-2015, and
50% in 2015-2016. Swartz Creek chose to set the percentage
lower than the 25% required starting next year in order to comply
with the law requiring that a portion of the evaluation this year be
based on student growth, but yet give district teachers and
administrators a year to practice measuring and reporting student
growth as part of the evaluation process.
Rationale about the process
• Classroom observations can vary in length and can be announced or
unannounced. Evaluators may come in for short periods of time to observe and
collect evidence to rate only selected components, or longer periods of time to
observe and collect evidence over a multitude of components.
• Part of the evidence used to rate non-classroom components on the framework
may be collected using pre-observation and post-observation forms and/or
conferences, with questions about planning for or reflecting on the lesson.
Teachers may be asked to submit certain artifacts, such as lesson plans or other
items that are pertinent to the components on the framework.
• Non-classroom observations may also include how teachers collaborate with
colleagues, communicate with parents, maintain accurate records and contribute
to the school or district in general. These are all components on the framework
and so there are no surprises for teachers as to what administrators will be
looking for as evidence in order to rate teachers in each of these areas. Teachers
are encouraged to submit to evaluators evidence not directly observed by
evaluators that would be useful to the evaluation process.
• There will not be a formalized peer review portion to the evaluation at this time.
However, teachers will be encouraged to self-review and reflect as part of the
process.
How classroom and non-classroom
observations are made
• Every lesson should have a learning target that is the “reason for being” for
that lesson. Ideally, a learning target is communicated to students in many
ways throughout the lesson, and the teacher will use some form of assessment
to see how well students do at performing the learning target. Learning
targets might be communicated by writing them somewhere in the room,
talking about them with students, modeling the kind of performance that is
expected once students master the learning target, and so forth.
• Learning targets should be pieces of a larger objective, GLCE, standard, etc.
They are the stepping stones that lead to mastery of the bigger concepts or
skills contained in our curriculum documents. The teacher should be able to
communicate to the evaluator what standard or GLCE that a lesson’s learning
target fits through written lesson plans, pre- and/or post-observation forms or
conferences. Sometimes teachers post these standards in the classroom as
well to point out to students as they work on the daily learning target.
• When working with individual students, for example in a special education
resource room, the learning targets would be communicated to each
individual based on what that student was learning.
Communicating the Lesson Objective
• The framework is designed to be unbiased of position and
grade level, including at-risk and special education
cohorts. It is a generic model that is equally applicable to
all disciplines and all levels.
What, if any, differentiation will
occur in the process
1. Summative ratings are determined for each component based on the rubric. Evaluators will take into
consideration the best descriptor of performance achieved during that school year in rating each component.
For example, in an initial observation, a teacher may be rated minimally effective in a component but then in a
subsequent observation, demonstrates effectiveness in that area. The summative rating would be effective for
that component.
2. After components are rated in a summative fashion, then summative ratings for each domain are established.
Domain ratings are based on the second lowest rated component. For example, there are 6 components in
domain one. At the end of the school year, if one of the components is rated ineffective, one minimally
effective, and four are rated effective, the overall rating for that domain is minimally effective. Remember,
that summative ratings in each component are the results of teachers receiving feedback and opportunities to
improve ratings throughout the school year.
3. After each of the four domains are rated in a summative fashion, to determine the rating for the observation
portion of the evaluation overall, the lowest rating among the four domains is used. For example, if a teacher
remains ineffective in classroom environment after being given feedback throughout the year about that rating,
then the teacher is considered ineffective overall.
• The summative rating for the student growth goal is determined according to the rubric:
•
•
•
•
•
•
90% or more of students meet goal – highly effective
75-89% of students meet goal – effective
51-74% of students meet goal – minimally effective
50% or less of students meet goal – ineffective
The summative rating for the IDP is determined according to the rubric based on the evidence of
achievement of all action steps.
The rating from observations (70%), IDP (20%), and student growth results (10%) then factor into the
final overall evaluation rating according to the chart provided.
How summative ratings
are determined
According to the Michigan state law, the district must use evaluation
results to inform decisions regarding all of the following:
• The effectiveness of teachers and school administrators, ensuring that
they are given ample opportunities for improvement.
• Promotion, retention, and development of teachers and school
administrators, including providing relevant coaching, instruction
support, or professional development.
• Whether to grant tenure or full certification, or both, to teachers and
school administrators using rigorous standards and streamlined,
transparent, and fair procedures.
• Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and school
administrators after they have had ample opportunities to improve,
and ensuring that these decisions are made using rigorous standards
and streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
How results of evaluations will
be used
• The Governor’s Council recommended the pilot of several
different rubric or framework systems. The Framework for
Teaching written by Charlotte Danielson, along with
Teachscape, who owns the electronic rights to the Danielson
Framework, are part of the official Michigan pilot.
• Examples of other districts using the Danielson Model are:
Montrose Community Schools, South Redford, Paw Paw, Van
Dyke, Walters Elementary, Marshall Schools, Crescent
Academy, Hamtramck Schools
• Districts are also implementing or piloting a variety of
methods for determining student growth measures and
factoring student growth in as part of teacher evaluations.
What is happening in other
districts
• The portion of the evaluation based on student growth
results will increase by law to 25% in 2013-2014, 40% in
2014-2015, and 50% in 2015-2016.
• Exactly how student growth results will be measured is
yet to be determined for future years.
• Various rubrics are being piloted this year across the
state. The state may determine that one set of rubrics will
be used in the future in all districts, or they may have a
recommended list for districts to choose from. All of this
is yet to be determined.
What will happen in future
years with evaluation
Many questions revolved around evaluators and the
training and testing that they will be undergoing to ensure
consistency and to minimize any bias in the process. This
section contains answers to those questions, including:
*How administrators are being trained
*Testing that administrators are taking to be certified
*Minimizing bias in the evaluation process
*Ensuring consistency among evaluators
FAQS ABOUT EVALUATORS
The Framework for Teaching Proficiency System by Teachscape is a complete solution for observer training
and assessment. Developed in partnership with ETS and Charlotte Danielson, the Framework for Teaching
Proficiency System enables districts and states to promote high-quality observations by implementing rigorous
training for all observers. With over 100 web-based master-scored videos, the Framework for Teaching
Proficiency System focuses on the practical application of Charlotte Danielson's New Framework for Teaching
Evaluation Instrument to observational evaluation. The Framework for Teaching Proficiency System develops
the skills and expertise of observers so they can make better judgments of teaching practice.
Observer Training
• Minimizing Bias training module to help distinguish between relevant evidence, bias, and interpretation.
• Eight component training modules to develop an in-depth understanding of the Framework.
•
•
•
•
Study the Framework and rubric language and watch classroom videos that illustrate each level of
performance.
Watch the benchmark and rangefinder video clips to get a sense for the range of a score point and to help
distinguish between levels of performance.
Read the scoring rationales that model how an expert uses the Framework to interpret evidence from
classroom observations. After reading these rationales, look at the Framework language again to refine
understanding.
Complete the activities in the component training modules that scaffold the scoring process, and study the
feedback to learn how to score individual components.
•
Complete the Applying the Framework module to begin utilizing knowledge of the Framework to score all
eight components of the Framework for a single video. This is a critical piece of training because it helps
prepare for Practice Videos and the Proficiency Assessment.
Practice Videos
• The Practice Videos offer an opportunity to refine skills using the Framework for Teaching to conduct
classroom observations and to practice scoring classroom videos.
Evaluator Training
Proficiency Assessment
Developed in partnership with Charlotte Danielson and ETS, the Framework for Teaching—
Proficiency Test is a rigorous next-generation assessment that uses innovative video-based items
to assess the ability of observers to accurately evaluate teaching practice using Charlotte
Danielson's New Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument.
By implementing the Framework for Teaching Proficiency Test districts and states can have
increased confidence that observers will be able to assess teaching performance with accuracy
and consistency.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The test measures proficiency in five sub-skills of using the Framework for Teaching to
conduct classroom observations.
Distinguish between appropriate evidence and interpretation
Distinguish between appropriate evidence and statements that are biased or suggest
professional preferences
Recognize evidence that has been mis-categorized to the wrong FfT component
Assign an accurate score for each of the eight FfT components based on a set of evidence
Assign evidence to the appropriate FfT component
The test is comprised of multiple-choice items and video scoring that together address these
five sub-skills.
Evaluator Testing / Certification
Administrative training includes a module on minimizing bias. This module introduces two key concepts:
biases and personal preferences.
• In the context of observations of teaching practice, bias occurs whenever there is variability in an
observer’s application of the rubric based on a deep-seated belief about or stereotype of the individuals in
the classroom. Biases can be unique to observers or can be shared across observers.
•
When you make value judgments based on a teacher’s or the students’ age, race, gender, appearance,
perceived economic status, or accent, these judgments may influence both how you collect evidence and
make scoring decisions based on that evidence. Bias may also exhibit itself when personal preferences
about teaching practices, materials, and classroom environment influence your judgment. Warning flags
can sometimes be words like could have, should have, must have, ought to have, and so on.
We usually exhibit personal preferences for familiar traits and behaviors, such as teaching style or
classroom setup. Personal preferences are often unique to an observer.
This module also integrates other important concepts that you should know for applying the Framework for
Teaching: evidence and interpretation.
• It is important that you record as evidence only what you see, hear, or read—not your interpretation of
what you see or your opinion about it. Evidence may be what the teacher and students say or what they do,
including body language (e.g., teacher walking around the classroom, students waving their hands in the
air to be recognized, students slumping in their chairs, students putting their heads on their desks).
• To make a scoring judgment for each component, you will need to interpret your evidence. However,
while you are in the process of collecting evidence, you should refrain from making interpretative
statements. It would be interpretation to say, for example, that the students appear comfortable, happy, or
bored. These are interpretations of the actual evidence from the classroom, which would describe what
students actually did or what they said.
Minimizing Bias and
Personal Preferences
The training and testing that we are implementing with administrators ensures that administrators apply the Framework in an
accurate and consistent manner.
Over 100 master-scored videos for training and assessment
•
With over 100 web-based master-scored videos, the Framework for Teaching Proficiency System focuses on the practical
application of Charlotte Danielson's New Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument to observational evaluation. The
Framework for Teaching Proficiency System develops the skills and expertise of observers so they can make better judgments
of teaching practice.
Observer Training
•
Framework for Teaching—Observer Training includes eleven online professional development modules that prepare observers
to deliver accurate and reliable evaluations of classroom teaching. Observer Training modules are designed for flexible use
and can be used for self-paced, self-guided learning or as part of facilitated learning groups. Training topics include:
•
The research and rationale behind the New Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument
•
How to effectively conduct observations using the in-class observable domains of the New Framework for Teaching
Evaluation Instrument
•
Bias-awareness training to minimize the effects of observer bias
Scoring Practice
•
Framework for Teaching—Scoring Practice prepares observers for real-world classroom observations by allowing them to
practice their observation skills using master-scored classroom videos. In Scoring Practice an observer:
•
Views online videos of real classrooms
•
Scores the videos using the New Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument
•
Receives feedback and compares his or her scores with the master scores assigned by an expert
Proficiency Test
•
Developed in partnership with Charlotte Danielson and ETS, the Framework for Teaching—Proficiency Test is a rigorous
next-generation assessment that uses innovative video-based items to assess the ability of observers to accurately evaluate
teaching practice using Charlotte Danielson's New Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument.
•
By implementing the Framework for Teaching Proficiency Test districts and states can have increased confidence that
observers will be able to assess teaching performance with accuracy and consistency.
Ensuring Consistency
Among Evaluators
*Professional Development on Framework for
Teaching / Danielson model and Teachscape
*Individual Assistance and Feedback /
Mentoring / Administrative Supports
*Support Available for Teachers Rated
Ineffective / Minimally Effective
FAQS ABOUT THE SUPPORT AVAILABLE FOR
TEACHERS
Every teacher has an account on www.teachscape.com that includes access to the Framework for Teaching
Effectiveness Series. Teachers should receive information about user names and passwords from building
principals. If teachers need information about how to log in and use the program, they should see their
building principal.
Framework Training
• Reflecting on your teaching practice can be challenging when so much is happening in the classroom and
you are in the middle of it. When you identify pertinent evidence from your lessons and interpret that
evidence using the rubrics in the Framework for Teaching, you can determine your current level of
performance, pinpoint areas for growth, and develop specific plans for improving your practice.
This training on the Framework for Teaching includes:
• The Understanding the Framework for Teaching module, which describes how the Framework is
organized and what aspects of teaching are included in the Framework for Teaching.
• The Applying the Framework for Teaching module, which scaffolds your use of the Framework to reflect
on your teaching and to develop specific instructional moves to use in the classroom to improve your
practice.
• The Framework Component learning modules offer more in-depth study on some of the components in
the Framework, including videos of sample classrooms that illustrate the different levels of performance.
You may choose to complete all or some of the component learning modules, depending on your personal
learning needs. (This training includes modules on 8 of the observable components from domains 2 and 3
of the Framework. It does not include modules on all components in the Framework.)
Some teachers are choosing to explore the website and learn independently. Others are forming school
committees that meet before or after school and earning SB-CEUs (there are requirements in order to earn SBCEUs, see your buildng administrator if you are interested in forming or joining a committee).
Future PD days will also focus on providing differentiated professional development to teachers based around
the areas of the framework that are most challenging.
PD for Teachers on Framework using
Teachscape
• All teachers will receive individualized feedback from an observer who
will take notes on the evidence seen during a classroom observation, link
the notes to the components of the framework, and assign a rating to
components viewed.
• Part of the observation cycle may include the following in order to help
teachers reflect on and improve their teaching:
•
•
•
•
Pre-observation questions / discussion
Post-observation questions / discussion
Teachers asked to submit lesson artifacts and/or student work
Teacher self-scoring on the rubric
• Mentors will be assigned to non-tenured teachers and teachers who have
received ineffective or minimally effective ratings on past evaluations.
• Observations will include recommendations for the teacher when
ineffective or minimally effective ratings are assigned. Teachers are
encouraged to use the Teachscape system to study and reflect on the
components that need improvement.
Individual Feedback / Mentoring
/ Administrative Support
• Teachers who receive ratings of ineffective or minimally
effective on components in one observation will receive
suggestions for improvement from the evaluator. On
subsequent observations the teacher has the opportunity to then
show improvement and receive a better rating on those
components prior to the final summative evaluation ratings
being assigned.
• Tenured teachers who receive ratings of ineffective or
minimally effective on the summative evaluation the first year
will be assigned a mentor and given additional support the
subsequent year, including a mid-year evaluation report.
Nontenured teachers will automatically have the benefits of a
mentor and a mid-year evaluation each year so long as they
remain nontenured, regardless of their rating.
Support for Teachers Rated Ineffective or
Minimally Effective
*Steps to complete IDP
*Cohort of students to include in the goal
*How student growth is measured
*What is considered successful student growth
*How student growth works for special education
*How student growth works for teachers with
non-core or non-loadbearing assignments
FAQS ABOUT IDPS AND
STUDENT GROWTH GOALS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Review your school improvement goals. As you develop your student growth goal, keep in
mind how it might contribute to one or more of the school improvement goals.
Select a cohort of students to include for your student growth goal. (see next slide about
student cohorts)
Decide upon what you want to improve, and think about how you can measure student
growth in that area. This will require you to have data about students’ abilities or knowledge
before you start instruction, to have something to compare to when you measure students’
abilities or knowledge after you complete your instruction. The “student growth dashboard
of measurements” lists potential assessments.
Write your goal, including specific cohort of students, what the focus will be, how it will be
measured pre and post and what specific, measurable amount of growth you expect to see.
For this first year, we encourage teachers to stick to writing one goal. It is not necessary to
write a goal for every subject you teach.
Write your action steps, including those things you plan to do to cause improvement in the
area of focus.
Using the WORD document form, submit your draft to your building principal for approval
by attaching the WORD document to an email.
If revisions are necessary, your building principal will discuss specifically what is needed to
complete your IDP. It will not count against you if revisions are needed, so long as they are
made and a final product is submitted in a timely manner.
Steps to complete IDP
• The cohort of students for the goal is that group of students whose results
on the pre and post assessment will be measured and compared to
determine student growth results. Examples of cohorts include, but are
not limited to:
• All students in a classroom for a K-5 teacher
• All students at a particular grade level in a particular school for a teacher who
works with more than one grade level and/or school
• All students in a particular course (which may include one or multiple
sections of that course) in a particular semester (for classes that are not yearlong)
• All students on a particular teacher’s caseload
• All students except one or two particular students excluded by mutual
agreement of teacher and evaluator (needs to be rationale for not including
that student, such as severe special needs, agreed to by teacher and evaluator)
Due to the need to compare beginning and ending results, any students that start
the year after the pre-assessment has already been given, or leave the class before
the post-assessment is given, would not be included as part of the cohort.
Cohort of students to include in the goal
• Student growth for 2012-2013 is measured according to what
the teacher chooses in the IDP, so long as it is agreed to by the
evaluator. (see steps to complete IDP) We do not yet know
what the state of Michigan may require in future years. That is
what the Governor’s Council and the pilot that is occurring this
year is supposed to help determine. The state is looking for a
system that will include three years worth of data in their
growth measurements, but how that system will work for
future years is still not defined.
• Showing growth with a classroom of “honors kids” can still be
done by measuring their knowledge of the content of the
course at the beginning of the year and comparing it to the end
of the year. Assuming they are properly placed in a course,
they should not already have all the knowledge and skills that
are to be taught in that course.
How student growth is measured
• The amount of growth is set by the teacher, in collaboration
with the evaluator. The goal should be based on achieving a
reasonable amount of student growth, which will vary
depending on what is being measured and how it is being
measured.
• Teachers will report how many students meet the growth goal
at the end. The rubric is used to evaluate those results as
follows:
•
•
•
•
90% or more of students meet goal – highly effective
75-89% of students meet goal – effective
51-74% of students meet goal – minimally effective
50% or less of students meet goal – ineffective
What is considered
successful student growth
• For special education students, each student has individualized
goals written into the IEP. Growth for those students could be
based on meeting the goals as stated in the IEP, which take into
consideration the student’s starting point and what would be a
reasonable expectation for a year’s growth. Again, for this
first year, this is a conversation that should happen between
teacher and evaluator to make sure both parties are in
agreement.
• The cohort of students should be based around what the special
education teacher and evaluator together think is reasonable. It
may be the entire caseload, or it may be a subset of the
caseload, depending on the individual circumstances.
How student growth works for special education
• Teachers with non-core subject areas should still have
standards, benchmarks, grade level content expectations
of some sort. Student growth goals should target
improvement in a particular area, with thought to
focusing on something that can be more easily assessed.
• Counselors, social workers, DIS teachers, and others with
non-loadbearing assignments will need to have a
conversation with the evaluator about a fair alternative.
Perhaps a caseload of students can be identified and a
growth goal determined based on the work that the staff
person does with students.
How student growth works for teachers
with non-core or non-loadbearing
assignments
*At –risk students with High rates of absenteeism /
lack of parental support
*Variations in class size / student placement in
classes
*Access to technology and other resources
*Building culture of positive behavior support
*Promotion / retention / grade level placement of
students
FAQS RELATED TO FACTORS OUTSIDE OF
TEACHING THAT IMPACT STUDENT LEARNING
Students need to be in attendance in order to benefit from instruction. That
is why the Swartz Creek Community Schools updated its attendance policy
this school year to include stricter standards for student attendance. If you
have a student who is frequently absent, be sure to work with the support
system available within your building (Principal/Assistant Principal,
Counselor/Social Worker) to ensure that the attendance policy is being
enforced and support is being provided to the student and family to improve
attendance. If a student is absent for extended periods of time, discuss the
option of excluding that student’s results from your data for your student
growth goal with your evaluator.
Working with the support team available within your building to address the
needs of at-risk kids, including lack of parental support, frequent absences,
and other issues, is actually one of the critical attributes of a highly effective
teacher in the component of “showing professionalism”. This would be a
sign of being highly proactive in serving students and making a concerted
effort to ensure opportunities are available for all students to be successful.
Absenteeism/Lack of
Parental Support
• Some variability in the size and make up of the various
classes across the district is impossible to prevent. Every
effort is made by the district to distribute students in the
most equitable manner so that teachers do not end up with
disproportionate numbers. If you have concerns about
the equitable distribution of students, please talk to your
building leadership team.
Variations in Class Size /
Class Make Up
• Swartz Creek Schools is committed to moving further
along with 21st century teaching and learning, including
the use of technology within the classroom. Technology
audits have been completed and a need assessment is
being formulated to see where the biggest discrepancies
are. However, the use of technology in and of itself is not
an indicator on the framework for teaching of being an
effective or highly effective teacher. There are many
highly effective teachers that use low-tech resources to
engage students in learning and achieve student growth.
Access to Technology and
other Resources
One of the FAQs asked about how the evaluation process will take into
account the variations in building cultures, with some buildings having
more fully implemented positive behavior support for students. Teachers
who feel that there could be better implementation of positive behavior
support systems within your building, which in turn would support
classroom teachers, should take steps to help make that happen by joining
your building leadership team and working collaboratively with colleagues
in the building. Critical attributes of a highly effective teacher with regard
to the component of professionalism include:
• Teacher is highly proactive in serving students
• Teacher makes a concerted effort to ensure opportunities are available for all
students to be successful
• Teacher takes a leadership role with colleagues
The willingness to challenge existing practice in order to put students
first is an indicator of showing professionalism.
Building Culture of
Positive Behavior Support
Swcrk Wiki
Danielson Website
Danielson Framework
Teachscape
Danielson Framework
Resources