Transcript Making Sense, Improving Learning

Making Sense,
Improving Learning
Teacher Evaluation and Professional
Learning Implementation
Moving from Compliance to Coherence:
Montville Public Schools
1
Development or Measurement?
What should be the focus of your teacher evaluation system?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Purely to develop teachers
Emphasize development but also to measure
Equal emphasis on measurement and development
Emphasize measurement but also to develop
Purely to measure teachers
Establishing a Common Language
One of the greatest barriers
to school improvement is the
lack of an agreed upon
definition of what high
quality instruction looks like.
(Elmore, 2010)
Why the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model?
 In over 1000 classrooms in 38 schools, on average when teachers used this
model, typical student achievement increased by 16 percentile points.
 The more strategies teachers used and the better they executed them,
the greater their students’ achievement.
Marzano Framework Elements
Conditions to Support Teacher Expertise
Common
Language of
Instruction
Recognition of
Progress
Focused
Feedback
Teacher Expertise
Clear Criteria
and Plan for
Success
Deliberate
Practice
Opportunity to
Observe and
Discuss Teacher
and Learning
Core Requirements of Teacher Evaluation
Student Growth
and Development
(45%)
Whole-school
Student Learning
Indicators or
Student Feedback
(5%)
Observations of
Performance and
Practice (40%)
Outcome Rating
(50%)
Peer Feedback
(10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
All of these factors are combined
to reach final annual
rating
8
7/17/2015
Recursive Nature of
Administrators’ and Teachers’ Evaluation Scores
Student Learning
(45%)
Teacher Effectiveness
(5%)
Outcome Rating
(50%)
Observations of
Practice (40%)
Stakeholder Feedback
(10%)
Practice Rating
(50%)
Administrator Evaluation Rating
9
7/17/2015
Administrators’ Learning Map
10
11
Summary of Teacher Goals
Observations of Performance & Practice (40%)
1 goal
Peer Feedback (10%)
1 goal (usually the same as Performance and Practice goal)
Student Growth and Development (45%)
2 Student Learning Goals (SLGs)
one based on standardized test results for tested grades and subjects
Whole School Student Learning Indicators (grades pK-8)
1 goal
OR Student Feedback (grades 9-12) (5%)
1 goal for student feedback (grades 9-12)
7/17/2015
Coherence In Goal Setting
13
Teacher Evaluation
The Marzano Model
14
Coherence
between Teacher
Practice and CT
Core Standards
Use 7 Standards
More Frequently
Coherence in Evaluating Teacher Practice:
Focused Feedback –
• Pick dominant elements
• Score elements that were called for but not used
• Provide concrete evidence
Coherence in Student Learning Focus, CT
Core Standards, Student Learning Goals,
and Assessment
20
Learning Scales & Core Standards Learning Progressions
Administrators’ SLGs and STAR Data
22
Teachers’ SLGs and STAR Data
23
Teachers’ SLGs and STAR Data
24
Building on What Works - Peer Feedback
The Peer Feedback component of the plan consists of the following steps:
Use performance and practice goal identified from review of the teacher evaluation rubric to provide a
focus for peer observations and peer feedback conversations.
Work with PLC group to develop a list of observable behaviors that indicates progress toward meeting
the goal.
Peer conducts at least two 10 minute observations and completes PLV Feedback Form or the Marzano
observation form for each visit. The peer shares results with the teacher.
Teacher engages in dialogue with the PLC group about his/her progress
Teacher incorporates the peer observation comments and the PLC conversations into a summary of
her/her progress toward meeting the goal in a reflective narrative :
What is your goal?
How did your performance in this area look at the beginning of the year?
What evidence did you decide would be collected through the peer feedback process to show
progress toward your goal?
What recommendations were made by your peer observer and your PLC group?
How has implementation of the recommendations made by your peers impacted student
learning?
Teacher uses the teacher evaluation rubric scale to determine a self-rating and turns this
form into his/her evaluator.
Peer Feedback
26
Coherence in Professional Learning
27
28
Professional Learning Sessions
29
30
Then, Now
What we had…
How it’s changed….
• Teacher evaluation included targeted goals for
student learning and documentation of progress;
• PLC goals with common assessments, SWR
• Student Learning Goals with IAGDs
• Standardized STAR Assessment
• Required communication of lesson objectives
• Required learning scales and tracking systems
based on learning progressions
• Professional Learning Visits (PLVs), PLCs
• Peer Observations
• Announced classroom observations every four
years, based upon narrative feedback in 10 areas,
non-evaluative annual walk-throughs
• Announced and unannounced 30 and 10 minute
observations using Marzano Framework (rubric
scored, 41 elements) every year
• Annual summative evaluation included planning,
professionalism
• Marzano Framework, Domains 2-4
• Annual goal-setting based upon a 20+ pg. DIP
• Annual goal-setting based on a 5 p. DIP
• Professional development
• Professional learning
What’s new?
• Recursive link between administrator’s evaluation and teacher’s evaluation
• Shared School-wide goals as part of evaluation
• Student Survey at secondary level
31
What’s Next…
Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Tighten focus at the district and building level

Ensure commitment and coherence around focus

Revise improvement plans / focus for leaders

Better communicate to all stakeholders
DIP  SIP: Coherence, student learning focus
32
Source: Jonathan Costa
33
Source: Jonathan Costa
34
Leadership
Monitor like Crazy
Implement with Fidelity
Establish Focus
Empower a Team
From: Sue Szachowicz, International
Center for Leadership Education
35
Leadership Matters
Good leaders grow schools where the
organizational culture is energized,
collaborative, and results focused. As
a result teaching and learning in all
classrooms are always getting better
Jon Saphier,
Research for Better Teaching
36