Transcript 2010-11 MPS Corrective Action Requirements

Southeastern Wisconsin
Teacher Evaluation Consortium
Summer Professional Development Series
August 14th, 2012
Julie Brilli, Director
Te a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t , a n d L i c e n s i n g
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Overview
• Brief Overview of State Education Initiatives
• Wisconsin Framework for Educator
Effectiveness
• A System’s View
• The Evaluation Process and Elements
• What About the Data?
• Are we Ready?
• Questions
Every Child a Graduate
College and Career Ready
Standards & Instruction
– What and how should kids learn?
Assessments and Data Systems
– How do we know if they learned it?
School and Educator Effectiveness
– How do we ensure that students have
highly effective teachers and schools?
School Finance Reform
– How should we pay for schools?
Timeline for Statewide Initiatives
New accountability system
begins & AYP ends (ESEA
waiver)
New proficiency benchmarks for
WKCE reading & mathematics
established
SMARTER Balanced
assessment field
testing
Educator Effectiveness system
design continues; Act 166
passed
2011-12
ASSETS for ELL
assessment in use
Educator Effectiveness
statewide system pilot
2012-13
New school report cards first
issued
(2011-12 accountability reports)
New kindergarten literacy
screener
administered statewide
DPI provides curricular
resources
for Common Core State
Standards implementation
First districts using State
Student Information System
(SSIS)
Developmental pilot of Educator
Effectiveness system
2013-14
All districts on SSIS
2014-15
Common Core State
Standards fully
incorporated into
school/district curricula
Smarter Balanced
replaces WKCE & WAASwD in mathematics and
English/Language Arts,
including reading and
writing
Educator Effectiveness
system implemented
statewide
2015-16
2016-17
Higher graduation
requirements
targeted –needs
legislation
School and Educator Effectiveness
How do we ensure kids have highly effective teachers
and schools?
• Replace broken No Child Left Behind
requirements with a new state
accountability and support system;
• Replicate best practices from highperforming schools and provide support
to improve the lowest-performing
schools;
•Advance a fair and
robust educator
evaluation system.
Context of the
Educator Effectiveness Work
• State Superintendent’s Educator Effectiveness
Design Team – Diverse Membership, National and
State Support and Expertise (formed December
2010)
• State legislation (Act 166)
– Endorses broad parameters of EE Framework
– Districts must implement evaluation systems consistent
with legislation by 2014-2015
• Federal push: (July 2012) ESEA Waiver approval
Educator Effectiveness Timeline
Stage 2
Piloting
Stage 1
Developing
Stage 3
Implementing
Phase 4
Phases 1 & 2
Phase 3
December 2010June 2012
July 2012- June 2013
Framework
released
Model
development
Developmental
Districts
Voluntary Pilots
Development
work
Evaluator and
Educator training
System training
July 2013- June
2014
Pilot Evaluation
Model revisions
Training
continued
Pilot expansion
to prepare for
statewide
implementation
Phase 5
July 2014-June
2015
Educator
Effectiveness
system fully
implemented
statewide
Continuous Improvement
Guiding Principles of the System
An educator evaluation system must deliver
information that:
– Guides effective educational practice that is aligned with
student learning and development
– Documents evidence of effective educator practice
– Documents evidence of student learning
– Informs appropriate professional development
– Informs educator preparation programs
– Supports a full range of human resource decisions
– Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and uniform
across districts
Definition of Effective Educators
Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently uses
educational practices that foster the intellectual, social and
emotional growth of children, resulting in measurable
growth that can be documented in meaningful ways.
Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes school
strategy and educational practices that foster the
intellectual, social and emotional growth of children,
resulting in measurable growth that can be documented in
meaningful ways.
Teaching is complex…
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness
System acknowledges this:
• Intentional, thoughtful in its design.
• Credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and
uniform across districts.
A System of Seamless Transitions
Pre-service
Evaluation
Licensing
License
Renewal & the
PDP Process
Synergistic Partnership Between PK-12 and
Educator Preparation Programs
Development of and Ongoing
Support for Educators
Development of and Ongoing
Support for Educators
System Weights
Sales
Educator
Practice
50%
50%
Student
Growth
Standards for Educator Practice
Teacher Practice
InTASC Teaching Standards (2011)
Framework for Teacher
Evaluation
Charlotte Danielson’s Domains &
Components
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation
Domain 2: The Classroom
Environment
Domain 3: Instruction
Domain 4: Professional
Responsibilities
Principal Practice
2008 Interstate School
Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC)
Standards
Framework for Principal
Evaluation
Subordinate functions of
the ISLLC standards
Educator Effectiveness Measures
Percent
Practice
measures
State Assessment (value-added model)
15%
15%
District Assessment
50%
15%
Student Learning
Objectives
2.5% 2.5%
District
Choice
School-wide Reading (Elementary-Middle)
Graduation (High School)
Evaluation Cycles
Orientation
Orientation
SelfReflection and
Educator
Effectiveness
Plan
Use of
Evaluation
Results
PRINCIPAL
TEACHER
Final
Evaluation
Conference
Evaluation
Planning
Session
Observation
s and
Evidence
Collection
Rating of
Practice
Pre- & PostObservation
Discussions
Self-Reflection
and Educator
Effectiveness
Plan
Use of
Evaluation
Results
Final
Evaluation
Conference
Evaluation
Planning
Session
Observations
and
Evidence
Collection
Rating of
Practice
Mid-Year
Review
Teacher Evaluation Cycle
Frequency
Duration
1 announced observation
45 minutes or
(2) 20-minute observations
1 unannounced observation
45 minutes or
(2) 20-minute observations
3-5 informal and unannounced
observations (walkthroughs)
At least 5 minutes
Principal Evaluation Cycle
•A minimum of two observations
Observations may include principal’s interactions or
principal’s activities (leading a team meeting) relevant
to the component being assessed
•Two to three informal school visits or
walkthroughs.
.
Teacher
Sources
PossibleEvidence
Evidence Sources
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classroom observation (live and/or videotaped)
Guided teacher reflections or reflection form
Lesson and unit plans
Samples of class assignments, student work with
feedback
Logs of family contacts
Professional development records and reflections
Student surveys
Evaluation conversations
Principal
Sources
Possible Evidence
Evidence Sources
• Documents
– School Improvement Plan
– Written teacher evaluations
– Leadership team agenda
• Observations
– Leading faculty meeting
– Community, school board presentations
• Surveys
– School working conditions/climate
• Discussions with principal
– Evaluator and principal interactions about evidence
Teacher
SLOs
What
are SLOs?
SLOs are collaboratively established goals for
growth in student achievement at the
classroom level that are:
– Specific and measurable
– Aligned to standards and to school improvement
plans/district strategic plans (if applicable)
– Based on learning needs as determined by data
– Established for individual teachers, teams, or
schools, and for all students or selected subgroups
– Based on rigorous, yet attainable growth goals
SLO Process
Create SLO
Not Approved
Submit SLO
for Approval
Approved
Review &
Score
Collect
Evidence
SLO
Evidence
Possible
Evidence
Sources
• Many potential sources of SLO evidence:
– End of course exams (with appropriate pre-test/baseline
measure of student knowledge)
– High-quality classroom assessments
– Performances/Portfolios of student work (when scored with a
rigorous rubric)
• SLO evidence should generally be kept separate from
data used to determine areas of student need, in order
to avoid “double-counting” of student outcomes
– WKCE is not an appropriate SLO evidence source (measures
November-November growth)
– Use of benchmark data (MAP, etc.) discouraged, but could be
appropriate in limited circumstances
Multiple Performance Categories
Developing: does not meet expectations and requires
additional support and directed action
Effective: areas of strength and improvement addressed
through professional development
Exemplary: expand expertise through professional
development and use expertise in leadership
The initial recommendation of the Design Team included three
performance categories. The Coordinating Committee met on July
26, 2012, and determined that five rating categories would be part of
the Developmental Pilot as opposed to three.
Educator Effectiveness
System Matrix
Student Outcomes
Models of Practice
1
2
1
3
4
5
*
*
2
*
3
4
*
5
*
*
•Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student
outcomes and requires a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and
what, if anything, needs to be corrected.
Data Systems Issues
• Gathering and collecting observation data,
student-teacher linkage data, mobility, etc.
• Integrating and managing data
longitudinally from a variety of sources
• Accessing and reporting data
• Validating for data quality
• Supporting stakeholders
District Readiness?
• Opportunities for collaboration?
• Common Assessment development?
• Understanding of the EE system?
• Developing leadership skills for
supporting this work?
• Formative Assessment?
Staying Informed and Involved
Visit the DPI Website:
http://www.dpi.wi.gov/tepdl/edueff.html
The Framework, presentations, FAQs, and
draft process manuals can be found posted
on the website
Thank You!