View
213
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Teacher Evaluation in New York State . . .
. . . and what it means for teachers of non-tested subjects
Johanna J. Siebert, Ph.D.NAfME Symposium on Assessment
June 24-25, 2012
NYS InitiativesCommon
Core StandardsWhat do we want
our students to know and be able to do?
Data Driven
InstructionHow will
we know?
APPRAnnual Professional Performance Review
Ensuring high quality
instruction in every
classroom
Annual Professional Performance Review
Inspired by Race to the Top Legislation New APPR a condition of the award Some portions of evaluation process negotiated between
the district and its teacher union Some portions state-mandated Evaluation process results in teacher “HEDI” score
◦ Highly Effective, ◦ Effective, ◦ Developing, ◦ Ineffective
Can lead to expedited 3020-A process for teacher termination
APPR – A 100 – Point System
60 Points
•NYS, National, and/or District Teaching Standards
•Multiple Supervision Models, including performance rubrics
•Observations, surveys, evidence of Student Learning
20 Points:
Studen
t Growt
h
•Growth on State Assessments – State provided score for grades 4-8 ELA, Math OR
•Growth Using Comparable Measures – Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)
20 Points: Local Assessment
•Student Achievement – locally determined measures cross grade-levels, teams, building
•Can use third party State-approved assessments – can measure growth, also
•District, BOCES developed assessment (rigorous, comparable)
Multiple Measures of Effectiveness for Teacher Evaluation
NY – districts can make individual decisions regarding:◦ Specific supervision model to be used◦ Priorities and academic need◦ Which subjects/teachers will use state-provided
ELA/Math scores and which will have SLOs◦ In-house processes for SLO assessing, scoring,
implementation
Other States: Similar conditions Entire state interprets uniformly
District-wide Decision Making
The First 60%
Select a teacher practice rubric from the State-approved list or apply for a variance
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching Marzano’s Causal Teacher Evaluation Model NYSTCE Framework for the Observation of
Effective Teaching NYSUT Teacher Practice Rubric
Collective Bargaining considerations
Step 1
Agree on the definition of “classroom observation” and any additional measures in the 60 point category (40 pts must be multiple observations)
Choose one or more of the following other measures of teacher practice:
A portfolio or evidence binder (student work or teacher artifacts)
Feedback from students, parents, and/or other teachers using a survey
Professional growth goals using self reflection (maximum of 5 points)
Step 2
Observation = 2 learning walks (15-minute informal walk-through, follow-up conversation)
OR A formal class-length observation
Multiple “observations” needed (2)
Could be 2 class-length observations 1 class-length observation, 2 learning walks 4 learning walks
We negotiated . . .
A portfolio or evidence binder (student work and/or teacher artifacts)
Professional growth goals using self-reflection (Professional Learning Plan, PLP)
WCSD selects 9 components from the 4 Domains
Teachers select an additional 5 components
And . . .
“The governing body of each school district and BOCES is responsible for ensuring that evaluators have appropriate training—including training on the application and use of the rubrics—before conducting an evaluation. The governing body is also responsible for certifying a lead evaluator as qualified before that lead evaluator conducts or completes a teacher’s or principal’s evaluation. ”
NYS Commissioner’s Regulations
Who evaluates whom?
Responsible for carrying out observations, summative evaluations
Must be trained and calibrated across each school district in selected model
Knowledge of model Walk-through, observation protocols Evidence-based reports Use, knowledge of specific rubrics Forms, feedback for teachers Professional Learning Plans
Lead Evaluators
Districts design a plan for: Training for all evaluators Certification for lead evaluators Role clarification Subcomponent and overall scoring Improvement plans Knowledge of appeals procedures (i.e.,
NYSED model appeals procedure in guidance)
How do districts calibrate supervision?
Develop Professional Learning Plan (PLP)
Attention to multiple professional areas (4 Domains) Preparation Classroom Environment Instruction Reflection, Professional ResponsibilitiesStudent-Centered Aspects Individual SLOs/Student Growth Student achievement Data-driven instruction Select observation protocol
◦ Traditional observation (class length)◦ Walk-through/Learning Walk
Teachers
More frequent interactions between teacher/supervising administrator
Mid-October – describe and set PLP, content are SLO(s)
November-December – observation and follow-up
January – midterm check-in on PLP, SLO progress
February-March - observation and follow-up May-June – summative evaluation
conference
Proposed Calendar of Supervision
Districts are choosing specific models, scheduling and implementing administrator training
Administrators, teachers at various stages Learning new protocols Scheduling workshops Goal-setting Setting district calendars
To begin in September, 2012
Summer Work
Student Learning Objectives
The First 20%
A student learning objective: Is an academic goal for a teacher’s students that is set
at the start of a course. Represents the most important learning for the year (or
semester, where applicable) Is specific and measureable based upon available prior
student learning data Aligned with Common Core, AND State or National
Standards, as well as any other school and district priorities
Represents growth from beginning to end of the course
Teachers’ scores are based upon the degree to which their goals are attained.
18
What IS a SLO?
More on SLOs Need common assessments for individual
growth across grade levels, content 50% rule, applied to total student load Teacher sets individual growth targets per
student Cross-scoring of summative assessments
needed, to ensure equity in HEDI scoring (need for inter-rater reliability)
Any teacher who does not use a state growth measure (ELA/Math assessments, gr 4-8)
“non-tested” subjects (70%) 50% + of student load Full-credit courses carry more weight than
part-credit, or semester Teacher will likely have multiple SLOs Teacher tracks, monitors progress of each
student in SLO classes to impact growth
Who Needs a SLO, and How Many?
For Growth, Start with EVIDENCE
Teacher sets individual student baseline using Historical data (ex., prior year’s grades) Pre-Assessment performance
Teacher predicts individual student growth in his/her course
Sets individual growth targets for students Post-assessment given at end of course (can be
state assessment) Data analysis yields success rate of students, and
teacher’s score on this section
HOW do you design the SLO?
New York State AssessmentsThere are NO state assessments in the arts NO common opportunity-to-learn standards
Regional BOCES are sponsoring writing sessions to design SLOs and assessments in the arts
Local districts design, implement their own
… are using ELA and/or Math state test scores IN PLACE OF
assessment data in non-tested subjects(the district-based SLO model)
Due to: Lack of common assessments Lack of inter-rater reliability Lack of content oversight by content specialist Lack of effective data system for monitoring and
tabulating results Ambitious timeline for implementation
Some districts…
SLOs must include . . .
NYS Learning Objective per grade selected Specific population/grade level Learning content Interval of instructional time (full year,
usually) Evidence to be used/collected (three forms)
◦ Historical◦ Pre-assessment◦ Post-assessment
Individual students’ baseline
continued. . . . Individual student targets (set by teacher) Teacher goal set Teacher scoring range, by HEDI ratings Rationale for the SLO and targets
Eventually Final individual student growth score % of students meeting individual targets Student % aligned with specific scoring
band for HEDI rating
Local Achievement Assessment
The Other 20%
Must be common across districts for grade level and content areas
Should represent summative measure of the course
Not to be applied to the SLO course(s) Teacher sets target for students Can NOT be scored by the teacher of record
Achievement Measures – the Last 20%
. . . Between SLO and Achievement measures?
SLO involves setting a target for students based upon previous performance data, i.e. measuring students’ growth; applied to 50% of student load
Achievement does not measure “growth” over the length of the course, but teacher needs to set group target; applied to one other course
What is the difference . . .
Addition of Value-Added Growth Model
Inclusion of other data in targeting growth Demographic Graduation Attendance
Planned for 2013-2014 school year
Still to come
Plans to release individual teacher evaluation ratings to the public (HEDI)
Highly effective Effective Developing Ineffective
“Teachers evaluations can be viewed as the equivalent of a Carfax report, empowering parents to attempt to avoid the ‘lemons.’ “
B. Jason Brooks, Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability
Release of Teacher Evaluation Information
June Determine next year’s SLO courses, populations Design pre-, summative assessmentsJuly and August Summer workshops, planning with like SLO teachers Calibrate scorers Design post-assessments, local common measures Administrators’ training in APPR forms, protocolsSeptember Meet students, get historical achievement data Administer, grade pre-assessments Set goal targets for students and self Meet with administration to review goals, etc.October Set SLOs, student targets Start applying strategies to gain student growth!
Timeline
Wish Us Luck!
Recommended