Transcript Student Growth - Educational Service District 113

Performance Evidence
Pilot District Perspective
ESD #113
December 11, 2012
John Bash, Deputy Superintendent
North Thurston Public Schools
Evidence: First…
• 1. Assemble your district team to include
teachers, administrators, association
representatives
• 2. Research and select an instructional
framework.
• 3. Professional development to understand
framework & the alignment to each state criteria
• 4. Development of evaluation process, tools,
forms (followed by process training)
NTPS Evidence Menu
• District TPEP Team: Work Sessions
• Goals:
– Menu of Possibilities: Not a checklist, Not a
Prescription, Enough to stimulate planning
– Format: Organize by state criteria with assigned
framework components.
– Use framework proficiency levels to determine
quality of evidence
NTPS Evidence Menu Sample
• State Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high
expectations for student achievement
• Operational Definition-EXPECTATIONS: The teacher communicates
high expectations for student learning
• Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
• Component 3a: Communicating with Students
• Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
• Evidence may include but is not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classroom Observation (part of evaluation cycle) 2b, 3a, 3c
Lesson Plans 2b, 3c
Unit Plans 2b, 3c
Student Work Samples 2b, 3a, 3c
Student Recognition and Rewards 2b, 3a, 3c
Student / Parent Feedback 2b, 3a
NTPS Crosswalk Document
(Evidence informs analysis)
State Criterion #1: Centering Instruction on High Expectations…
Component
3a
Communicating
with Students
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
Expectations for
learning, directions
and procedures,
and explanations of
content are unclear
or confusing to
students. The
teacher’s use of
language contains
errors or is
inappropriate for
students’ cultures
or levels of
development.
Expectations for
learning, directions
and procedures,
and explanations of
content are clarified
after initial
confusion; the
teacher’s use of
language is correct
but may not be
completely
appropriate for
students’ cultures
or levels of
development.
Expectations for
learning, directions
and procedures,
and explanations of
content are clear to
students.
Communications
are appropriate for
students’ cultures
and levels of
development.
Expectations for
learning, directions
and procedures,
and explanations of
content are clear to
students. The
teacher’s oral and
written
communication is
clear and
expressive,
appropriate for
students’ cultures
and levels of
development, and
anticipates possible
student
misconceptions.
NTPS Evidence Menu Sample
•
State Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices
focused on improving instructional practice and student learning
•
•
•
•
Operational Definition-PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE: The teacher participates
collaboratively in the educational community to improve instruction, advance
the knowledge and practice of teaching as a profession, and ultimately impact
student learning
Component 4d: Participating in a Professional Community
Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
Component 4f: Showing Professionalism
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evidence may include but is not limited to:
Self Assessment of Practice (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f
Collaborative Goal Setting (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f
Reflection Conference (part of evaluation cycle) 4d, 4e, 4f
Non-classroom Observation 4d, 4f
Reflective Journal 4d, 4e, 4f
School / District Committee Artifacts 4d, 4e, 4f
School / District Leadership 4d, 4e, 4f
Clock Hours / Credits / Transcripts 4e
Peer Feedback 4d, 4e, 4f
Professional Awards and Recognition 4d, 4e, 4f
NTPS Crosswalk Document
(Evidence informs analysis)
State Criterion #8: Exhibiting Collaborative and Collegial Practices…
Component
4d
Participating in a
Professional
Community
Unsatisfactory
Basic
Proficient
Distinguished
The teacher avoids
participating in a
professional
community or in
school and district
events and projects;
relationships with
colleagues are
negative or selfserving.
The teacher
becomes involved
in the professional
community and in
school and district
events and projects
when specifically
asked; relationships
with colleagues are
cordial.
The teacher
participates actively
in the professional
community and in
school and district
events and projects,
and maintains
positive and
productive
relationships with
colleagues.
The teacher makes
a substantial
contribution to the
professional
community and to
school and district
events and projects,
and assumes a
leadership role
among the faculty.
NTPS Evaluation Cycle
Teacher SelfAssessment
Summative
Scoring
Process
First
Observation
Cycle
Second
Observation
Cycle
Teacher Self-Assessment
• Review Instructional Framework (Enhancing
Professional Practice: a Framework for
Teaching)
• Review prior year evaluation feedback
• (Preparation for first planning conference with
evaluator)
First Observation Cycle
•
•
•
•
Planning Conference
Formal Classroom Observation
Reflection Conference
Includes Goal Setting Discussion
Second Observation Cycle
•
•
•
•
Planning Conference
Formal Classroom Observation
Reflection Conference
Preparation for Pre-Summative
Conference: Evidence Discussion
Second Observation Cycle
• Planning Conference
• Formal Classroom Observation
• Reflection Conference
Summative Scoring Process
•
•
•
•
Teacher Self Assessment & Reflection
Pre-Summative Conference Preparation
Pre-Summative Conference
Final Summative Conference (optional)
Sample Observation Cycle Evidence
• See separate packet.
• Thank you:
– Monica Sweet, Aspire Middle School Principal
NTPS
Summative Evaluation Standards
• Must score each of the eight (8) state criteria
• Must have evidence in at least two components for each
criteria (Exception: Criteria #7 = Only one component - 4c)
• For any criteria rated “1” (unsatisfactory) or “2” (basic),
evaluator must provide evidence-based narrative explanation
on summary evaluation form.
• Final holistic summative score determined by evaluator using
scores for eight criteria and summative rubric.
• No Surprises - Process designed to reveal all strengths and
growth areas prior to final summative evaluation.
Sample Plan – Per Teacher
March through April
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Staff Meeting – 1 hour (All)
Reflection Conference + Menu: 1 Hour
Prep for Pre-Summative: 30-60 Min.
Goals Rev./Pre-Summative Conf.: 1 hour
Prep final evaluation document: 45 Min.
Summative Conf.: (Optional) 30 Min.
Total: 4-5 hrs per teacher + staff mtg.
Pre-Summative Conference
• Before The Conference…
• Teacher & Evaluator:
– Considers component evidence which may be used to
inform the summative evaluation.
– Reflects on strengths and areas for further growth
– Uses framework , crosswalk document, and summative
evaluation form to score each of the eight criteria along
with a single summative score.
– “More” evidence is not necessarily “better”. Refer to
framework in deciding what to bring to the conference.
Pre-Summative Conference
• Conference Agenda:
– Compare/discuss preliminary criteria scores and summative
score prepared by teacher and evaluator along with related
evidence
– For any differences in preliminary scores, component evidence
is reviewed to seek mutual agreement. (If no agreement can be
reached, teacher may submit new evidence for evaluator
consideration.)
– Identify any new evidence necessary to complete evaluation
and determine who will gather/provide this.
– Review Summative Evaluation Document Plan & Optional Final
Conference
Evaluation Summative Scoring Process
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Criteria 7
Criteria 8
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
District
determined
process
State
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Summative Rating Process Overview
• Summative Rating is determined through a
“Raw Score” Model
• Determination of overall criterion score based
on both:
– Instructional framework rubrics
– Student growth rubrics
The RAW Score Model
Overall
Criterion
Scores
Teaching Criteria
* Indicate Criterion embedded with student growth rubrics
Criterion 1: Centering instruction on high expectations for student achievement
3
Criterion 2: Demonstrating effective teaching practices
4
*Criterion 3: Recognizing individual student learning needs and developing strategies to address those needs
3
Criterion 4: Providing clear and intentional focus on subject matter content and curriculum
2
Criterion 5: Fostering and managing a safe, positive learning environment
3
*Criterion 6: Using multiple student data elements to modify instruction and improve student learning
2
Criterion 7: Communicating and collaborating with parents and school community
3
*Criterion 8: Exhibiting collaborative and collegial practices focused on improving instructional practice and student
learning
2
Total Summative Score
22
8-14
15-21
22-28
29-32
1
Unsatisfactory
2
Basic
3
Proficient
4
Distinguished
Evaluators place teachers into preliminary summative rating
categories based on score bands. As illustrated above, this
teacher would receive a preliminary overall summative
rating of Proficient.
Evaluation Summative Scoring Process
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
District
determined
process
State
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Criteria 7
Student Growth
Measures
Student Growth
Impact Ratings:
Criteria 8
(From 3 specific criteria)
Low, Average, High
ESSB 5895 Establishes New Definitions Around
Student Growth Measures
Both E2SSB 6696 and ESSB
5895 contain language around
student growth including:
•
Student growth data that is relevant to the
teacher and subject matter must be a
factor in the evaluation process and must
be based on multiple measures that can
include classroom-based, school-based,
district-based, and state-based tools.
Student growth means the change in
student achievement between two points
in time.
Changes…
•
Student growth data must be a
substantial factor in evaluating the
summative performance of
certificated classroom teachers for
at least three of the evaluation
criteria.
•
Student growth data elements
may include the teacher’s
performance as a member of a
grade-level, subject matter, or
other instructional team within a
school when the use of this data is
relevant and appropriate.
Defining Key Terms
• Student Achievement: The status of subjectmatter knowledge, understandings, and skills
at one point in time.
• Student Growth (Learning): The growth in
subject-matter knowledge, understandings,
and skill over time.
Student Growth Rubrics
• The TPEP steering committee organizations
approved statewide rubrics for student growth to
ensure consistency in implementation of the
evaluation system across Washington State.
• The rubrics for student growth describe both
goal-setting and outputs of student learning.
• OSPI has provided student growth rubrics for
each of the three criterion
– Teachers #3, #6, and #8
– Principals #3, #5, and #8
Student Growth Rubric and Rating
(Teachers Only)
Student Growth
Goal-Setting Score Based on
Rubric
Student Growth* Score Based
on Rubric
Criterion 3
3
2**
Overall Student
Growth Criterion
Score
5
Criterion 6
2
2**
4
Criterion 8
2
N/A
2
Student Growth Score
7
4
11
*Must include a minimum of two student growth measures (i.e., state-,
district-, school-, and classroom-based measures).
** A student growth score of “1” in any of the student growth rubrics will
result in a Low growth rating.
Evaluators place teachers into summative rating categories based on
score bands. As illustrated below, this teacher would receive a low
student growth rating
5-12
Low
13-17
Average
18-20
High
Evaluation Summative Scoring Process
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
Criteria 6
Frameworks
+
Student
Growth
Rubrics
Observation
Artifacts
Other
evidence
relevant to
the
frameworks
District
determined
process
State
determined
process
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Distinguished
Proficient
Basic
Unsatisfactory
Criteria 7
Student Growth
Measures
Student Growth
Impact Ratings:
Criteria 8
(From 3 specific criteria)
Low, Average, High
Summative Rating & Impact on
Student Learning Matrix
NTPS
Game Plan for Student Growth
• Gather representative team
• Identify teaching assignment categories at
elementary and secondary
• List appropriate student growth measures for
each assignment
• Obtain or develop student growth measures as
needed for specialized assignments
• Develop training tools, sample goals, and other
resources for teachers and principals
• Development This Year; Implement FALL 2013.
NTPS Lessons Learned
• Quality, NOT Quantity
• Collect, discuss, and record all year
• Maximize conference discussions for teacher
and principal
• Create evidence plan WITH each teacher –
Should NOT be prescribed without teacher
input.
QUESTIONS?