Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)

January 31, 2013

1

Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)

A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectiveness

M-STAR

’

s Goal: To improve teacher practice and positively impact student learning

• • • •

M-STAR:

provides a reliable and valid process based on common standards, includes multiple measures, indentifies areas of strength and challenge, and helps track educational progress to improve the performance of teachers.

2

The National Perspective: Research and Reports

 Research confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students ’ achievement.

 Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways: • Lack sufficient connection to goals for student learning and growth • Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for improvement • Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness 3

Trends in Teacher Evaluation

 Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluation  Focus on models and measures that help teachers/schools/districts improve performance  Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher evaluation measures and models 4

U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachers

Method for determining and identifying effective and highly effective teachers:

 Must include multiple measures  Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth  Supplemental measures may include multiple observation based instruments 5

Defining Teacher Quality



“Highly qualified teacher” status:

 Bachelor’s degree  Full state certification  Demonstrated knowledge of assigned subject(s) 

“Highly effective teacher” status:

 Student academic growth  Other measures 6

Defining Teacher Quality



Stakeholder engagement

Mississippi Teachers of the Year State Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC) Meetings with Teachers and Principals Teacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers) Teacher Organizations Mississippi Association of School Superintendents 

Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to streamline and redesign instrument

7

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)

in Mississippi • • • • • Five Year Federal Grant Awarded September 2010 $ 10.7 Million Award for MS Serves 10 schools in 7 districts Multi-strategy approach to school improvement 8

Multiple Strategies

Five TIF Project Components for School Improvement 1. Educator Evaluation 2. Student Growth Data 3. Professional Development 4. Career Ladders for Teachers 5. Performance Based Compensation 9

M-STAR DOMAINS, STANDARDS, PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND RATINGS

10

M-STAR

Why a standardized process?

 Increases the validity of the evaluation and the reliability of the evaluation instruments  Ensures teachers are evaluated fairly, using consistent criteria  Ensures that scores are based on evidence, not on personal judgment or bias  Strengthens evaluative decisions 11

How is M-STAR Different?

Traditional Observations

Single time point for classroom observation Use of “ checklist ” tools (strength/weakness, yes/no) High performance ratings given to almost all teachers Does not include student outcomes

Evidence-Based Observations

Multiple time points for classroom observation Use of rubrics that define instructional improvement on a continuum Variations in performance ratings among teachers Links teacher effectiveness to student performance 12

Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)



Five domains (weighted equally)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Planning Assessment Instruction Learning Environment Professional Responsibilities 

20 Standards



Four levels of effectiveness:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Unsatisfactory Emerging Effective Distinguished 13

A teacher ’ s summative rating is based on two components: Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.

M -STAR 30% S tudent Outcomes 50% P GGs 20% 0

Professional Practice: 50% Student Outcomes: 50%

M-STAR: 30%

– 2 formal observations – 5 informal observations (walkthroughs)

Professional Growth Goals: 20%

– Self-evaluate, receive feedback, and progress toward goals

Individual Growth

– State tested areas

OR Student Learning Objectives

– Non-tested areas

AND School-wide Growth

– Tested and Non-tested 14

Review lesson plan, understand context, & ask clarifying questions

Formal Observation Cycle

Key Questions: What are students learning?

What is the evidence of this learning?

Pre-Observation Conference

1-2 days prior to observation

Observation Post Observation Conference

Within 1 week of observation

Effective, concrete feedback & next steps are critical.

Follow up Walkthrough

Within 2 weeks of post-observation conference

Observe feedback in action 15

Scoring Process

 Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard  4 points  3 points  2 points  1 point  Within each domain, the points will be averaged.

 The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating.

16

M-STAR Ratings

A teacher ’s performance will be appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale:

   

Level 4 Distinguished:

indicates that the teacher ’s performance consistently

exceeds

expectations.

Level 3 Effective:

indicates that the teacher ’s performance

meets

expectations.

Level 2 Emerging:

indicates that the teacher ’s performance

inconsistently meets

expectations.

Level 1 Unsatisfactory:

indicates that the teacher ’s performance

does not meet

expectations. 17

Example : Summative Observation Rating

Domain

I: Planning II: Assessment III: Instruction IV: Learning Environment V: Professional Responsibilities

Domain Score

2.75

4 2.5

3.5

2.5

Summative Classroom Observation Rating Weight Weighted Rating

x .20

.55

x x .20

.20

x .20

x .20

.80

.50

.70

.50

3.05

(2.75 + 4 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 2.5) 5 18

MS Teacher Evaluation System

Implementation Timeline

Pilot Implementation (TIF) 2011 - 2012 Statewide Training on New System Field Test the System Full Implementation July 2012 – July 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 19

M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES PRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE • • • • • • • • Teachers Clear expectations for both teachers and principals Specific, timely feedback Principal awareness of what will occur in the classroom Teacher/principal communication Necessity of teacher preparation Focus on teacher’s strengths and weaknesses Teacher self-reflection Prior identification of potential problems • • • • • • • Principals Clear expectations for both teachers and principals Opportunity for open dialogue Information on what administrators want to observe Easing of teachers’ anxieties Relationship building with teachers Opportunity for knowledge gathering Alerting of principals to special circumstances 20

M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE • • • • •

Teachers

Immediate, timely feedback Dialogue on strengths and areas of improvement Opportunity for professional development and improvement plans Self-reflection Teacher explanations of classroom activities (planned and unplanned) • • • • • • • •

Principals

Feedback on strengths and areas of challenges Teacher reflection Open dialogue Provision of accommodations and recommendations for improvement Relationship building Teacher input regarding professional development needs Time for teacher/administration collaboration Opportunity for coaching and professional learning 21

The

ultimate

goal of

M-STAR

is …

TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING!

22

[email protected]

23