Performance Appraisal Systems. Desired Outcomes By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following: A new model for teacher evaluation

Performance Appraisal Systems

Desired OutcomesBy the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following:

A new model for teacher evaluation based on current research (Marzano, Danielson, others)

The correlation of B.E.S.T. in the observation and feedback

The structure of the new instructional appraisal system

The FEAPs as a framework for the observation process

2

Evaluation process requires a two-way dialogue between observer and observee

A teacher’s impact as a leader on the school should extend beyond the classroom

The primary purpose of an evaluation is to improve instruction, evidenced by student achievement

Rationale: Our lens

3

The development of the evaluation process for any one teacher is designed with the input of both teacher and administration

Evaluation for the teacher is an ongoing and reflective process

It takes more than one observation to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher

Teacher effectiveness is correlated to the level of student engagement and student performance

Rationale

4

Goal

All teachers will increase their expertise

and skill level from year to year, which

will produce gains in student

achievement from year to year.

5

Professional Appraisal Model (p. 65)

6

Professional Appraisal Model:Professional Practices

7

Dimensions (21 Pts)

BPS Instructional Performance Appraisal System Dimensions

Relationships with Parents & Community

Relationship with Students

Professional Responsibilities & Ethical Conduct

Assessment

Instructional Delivery & Facilitation

Learning Environment

Instructional Design & Lesson Planning

8

I. Observation of the Dimensions (21 pts)

For Teachers with 0 – 3 years of experience and any new hire to the District:

Two formal observations At least two informal observations

9

Observation of the DimensionsFor Teachers with 4+ years of experience with BPS, in year one:

One formal observation

10

Observation of the Dimension In future years, the “years of experience”

benchmarks will be replaced by the ratings to determine required number of formal observations.

Teachers who earn “Highly Effective” ratings will have the option of participating in the formal observation process every other year.

11

Observation of the DimensionsInformal Observations have no time requirement and are requested by the teacher; the primary goal is to gain feedback connected to a particular instructional practice.

Teachers receive the informal observation feedback forms and decide which two to submit to the supervising administrator as evidence for the final evaluation.

12

Observation of the Dimensions

The goal of informal observations:

Personal Professional Growth!

13

Observation of the DimensionsThe observation form will be functional for both formal and informal observations. It is a data-gathering tool which aligns with both the FEAP’s (Florida Accomplished Educator Practices) and B.E.S.T. (Brevard’s Effective Strategies for Teaching).

See sample form provided (pages 44 – 47)

14

Observation of the Dimensions Rubrics have been created to evaluate each of

the 7 dimensions of the appraisal system.

A forum will be available on the District website to answer questions about the rubric elements. Responses will be posted within 24 hours through September 30.

15

Observation of the Dimensions Evidence for the summative evaluation will be

gathered through classroom observations, as well as other aspects of teaching, including staff meetings, site-based professional development activities, and student/parent conferences.

The goal of the summative evaluation is to capture the art and science of effective instruction!

16

Observation of the Dimensions Teachers will submit their self-assessments on the

7 dimensions of professional practices between January 6 and February 1.

Supervising administrators will review evidence, including observations and the teacher’s self-assessment, to complete the summative evaluation.

See sample self-assessment form (pages 56 – 59) See sample self-assessment + admin form (pages

61-64)

17

Observation of the Dimensions Scores of each element will be averaged to

arrive at the score for each accomplished practice.

Seven (7) accomplished practicesThree (3) points possible for each

= 21 total points possible for

Professional Practices Element of Appraisal

18

Observation of the Dimensions

Note: While the Administrator will consider a teacher’s self-assessment in the summative evaluation process, along with all other evidence, the Principal or Supervising Administrator holds the final professional responsibility for the evaluation.

19

II. Professional Growth Plan Development (10 Pts)

Development of PGP Goal

Work Plan Strategies

Outcome Measures and Reflection

20

Professional Growth Plan Development Rubrics created to evaluate plan development

and implementation. Review development rubric pages 39-40

Three-member Leadership Team established and trained from each school to evaluate plans, along with the Administrator. (August training)

ET will provide each teacher with an identifying number so that plans can be evaluated anonymously.

21

How to evaluate a “stretch goal” and maintain anonymity? Peer Review Team will examine the instructional

challenges, weaknesses, and non-utilized practices identified in the goal rationale.

22

Professional Growth Plan Development

Pre-conference meetings will be held with supervising administrators by September 15 to assist with plan development.

At pre-conference meetings administrators and teachers may: Review student data Identify support and assistance, and other teachers

working on similar goals Brainstorm possible strategies for goal attainment Review observation form and appraisal processes

23


Plans will be submitted to administrators by September 19 for evaluation.

Prior to September 19, teachers may ask clarifying questions on the forum, of the administrator, or of members of the teacher-review team but “draft plans” will not be accepted.

24


Let’s review a Sample Distinguished Plan: Rationale

See sample PGP goal form pages 49-50

25


Each member of the review team will score the PGP’s independently.

A team score will be calculated by averaging the three teacher-leader scores; this score will be averaged with the score from the supervising administrator. Example: Teacher A = 9; Teacher B = 8;

Teacher C = 8 -- Team Score = 8.33 Supervising Administrator Score = 7 Final PGP Score = 7.665 or 7.7 (rounded to the nearest tenth)

26


Teachers will receive a feedback form along with the Professional Growth Plan Score.

Feedback will be provided for any element rated “support needed” or “unsatisfactory.”

Teachers will not resubmit the plan for a second evaluation, but will be expected to take the feedback provided into consideration for plan implementation. See sample feedback form page 52

27


III. Professional Growth Plan Implementation (8 Pts)

Working the Plan

In-Process Monitoring

Review rubric for evaluation: the goal is fidelity to the professional growth process; not perfection! “Stretch!” Review implementation rubric page 41

28

Professional Growth Plan Implementation

PGP implementation is a formative process and should include a continuous cycle of practice, feedback, and reflection to inform the ongoing effort to improve instructional practice.

29

“Colleague observations” mean being observed or observing others.

These observations should also be formative—answering questions and providing constructive areas for growth.

30


Supervising Administrators will hold mid-year conferences (Nov – Jan) with all teachers to monitor and support plan implementation. The length and formality of these meetings will depend on the needs of the individual teacher.

See sample form page 66

31


Teachers will gather evidence of implementation process.

Plan documentation will be a combination of personal reflection and feedback from colleagues—observed, documented, and anecdotal evidence of accomplishment.

Sample pieces of evidence may include a professional journal, comments and revisions on a lesson plan, follow-up observation forms, student feedback, video, etc.

32


Teachers will complete self-assessment for plan implementation (Nov-Jan) and share the self-assessment along with collected evidence of accomplishment at the final conference in the spring.

Supervising administrators will consider professional observations, self-assessment results, and conference discussion elements to evaluate the teacher’s PGP implementation.

Final score is an average of the teacher and administrator ratings.

33


IV. Collaboration and Mutual Accountability (8 Pts)

Working together as a team to support each other’s professional growth and instructional effectiveness.

Team members will target a particular group of students in need of additional academic support in order to close the achievement gap.

(more explanation under Student Achievement)

34

Collaboration and Mutual Accountability

The 8 point rubric is designed to accurately describe how a team of distinguished educators works together collaboratively to improve practice and achievement. Review rubric page 42

35

Team members will demonstrate professionalism by providing meaningful feedback to one another about effective teaching and by supporting each other’s efforts to support and motivate the targeted group of students.

36


Team members will complete an evaluation form, using the rubric, for each teammate.

An electronic form will be created to provide for anonymity and efficient score tabulation.

It will be the professional responsibility of each team member to fully participate in the team, support the team’s goals, and provide honest, objective feedback on fellow team member’s collaboration and performance.

37


Timeline

Training for 3-member Peer Review Team: Last two weeks of August

Blackboard site for clarifying questions: August 3 – September 30

Establish collaborative teams: by Friday, September 2

Pre-conferences by Thursday, September 15 Submit PGP’s for Peer Review: by Monday,

September 1938

Timeline, continued

Peer Review Teams evaluate PGP’s: 2-3 weeks Mid-year conferences: November 14 – January 13 Teachers will submit self-reflections and teams

will submit collaboration/mutual accountability scores by February 1

Final Conferences/Evaluation Summaries: March 2012

39

Professional Practices

40

I. Observation of the Dimensions (21 Pts)

II. Professional Growth Plan Development (10 Pts)

III. Professional Growth Plan Implementation (8 Pts)

IV. Collaboration and Mutual Accountability (8 Pts)

Total for this element: 47 points

Professional Appraisal Model: Student Achievement

41

Student Achievement

Student Achievement results required to be weighted at least 50% of instructional and administrative evaluation.

Brevard’s appraisal system incorporates multiple data components—including some elements we believe we have more control over and for which we have current data to use as a guide in establishing targets.

42

Student Performance Growth Measures

Ia. Individual accountability for student achievement/value-added growth measures = 30 points.

We’ll come back to this.

43

Regression Example: Marvelous Middle School

44

PART 1: One point each for current year Reading, Math, Science, Total Points regression results based on School Grade components

Target: At or above line of predicted performance (>=0) OR Current year above average of previous 3 years

PART 1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010

Target met?

2007-09

AverageCurrent yr above

3 yr average?

2010

School Grade Component

Previous 3 Years Current year

Point Earned

Reading .03 1.26 1.4 .79 YES .9 No 1Math -1.31 -1.22 -.58 -.11 No -1.04 YES 1

Science .39 .7 1.2 -.85 No .76 No 0

Total Pts .15 -.05 .16 .54 YES .09 YES 1

PART 1 Points Earned 3

Regression Example: Marvelous Middle School

45

PART 2 2009 2010 2010 2009-10 2010 2010

School Grade Component

Previous Year

Current Year

At least 0.4 above line of prediction?

Difference 0.4 above previous year?

Point Earned

Total Pts .16 .54 YES .38 No 1



TOTAL Points Earned for Regression Component 4 of 5

PART 1: One point for current year Total Points results Target: Current year 0.4 above previous year ‘s performance

OR At least 0.4 above line of prediction


On average, at every level, our schools scored between 3 and 4

29% of our schools would have received a 5

17% would have scored 0, 1, or 2

46

Ic. Accountability for collaborative team student achievement results related to closing the achievement gap: 5 pts. Benchmarks to be determined based on analysis of

3 years of data related to appropriate gap measures.

47


IIa. Accountability for achievement of School Improvement Plan goals: 5 pts.

Area Superintendents will continue to meet with School Advisory Councils and Administrators to review School Improvement Plans. Area offices will work with administrators to analyze and evaluate goals, implementation of strategies, and achievement of outcome indicators.

48

Student Performance Growth Measures: District Option

Part I: Implementation, Whole School—2 points Have you done what you said you were going to do?

Area Offices will review evidence of implementation of SIP strategies.

Part II: Outcome Indicators: Whole School or Team--3 points 3 points – All Outcome Indicators met or significant growth 2 points – Most Outcome Indicators met 1 point – Some Outcome Indicators met 0 points - Few or no Outcome Indicators met

Does data support attainment of SIP goals?49


IIb: Individual accountability for meeting Professional Growth Plan targets: 2 points+2 Target met or exceeded

+1 Growth toward target evident

+0 Target not met and no evidence of growth

Consider: Evaluation of PGP development includes criteria for “stretch” goal worth 2 points in that rubric. You will earn equivalent overall scores for “stretching” and showing growth as for submitting an “average” goal and exceeding your outcome targets! 2 + 1 = 3 is equivalent to 1 + 2 = 3

50


IIc. Alignment of points awarded for Professional Practices “side” and Student Achievement “side” of the final evaluation:

6 points, 3 from each “side.”

51


IIc. What is alignment?Professional Practices Student

PerformanceTeacher A. 41 39 AlignedTeacher B. 39 30 Not AlignedTeacher C. 34 30 AlignedTeacher D. 43 40 AlignedTeacher E. 34 41 Not Aligned

52


Alignment demonstrates the professional responsibility we all share to provide honest feedback to others in order to improve instructional effectiveness, thus improving student performance.

Points values on the handout are preliminary. Once we have had an opportunity to analyze value-added data , if targets for alignment are determined to be too challenging, values will be adjusted prior to the final calculation of evaluation results. If targets are determined to be too low, point calculations will remain for the 2011-2012 school year but will be adjusted for 2012-2013. Consider this the Monopoly card, “Bank Error In Your Favor.”

53


Analogy: Oak Tree Video

54

Student Performance Growth Measures: Value-Added

Ia. Value-added: 30 pts. A statistical formula that controls for variables

outside of a teacher’s control that affect student achievement. These variables include attendance, ELL, ESE, overage, etc.

Value-added calculates expected growth from a student’s previous FCAT level and includes a weight given to school culture characteristics.

55


Value-added calculations for teachers whose students took Reading and Math FCAT during the past 3 years were provided to the District on August 2.

Teachers who had scores will be provided this information as soon as the District processes the data file.

56


All teachers will receive their school’s value-added score, as well as the ranges for schools in our District.

In addition, Dr. Schafer and her staff will be analyzing ranges of scores, in order to provide information related to ranking of both schools and individual teachers.

57


Evaluation point values for the value-added component will not be established until we have analyzed these data thoroughly.

Priority Goal: Establish fair, reasonable, and equitable targets.

58


The value-added formula can only be applied to FCAT Reading and Math, not to any other state, national, or district test or benchmark.

DOE is currently working with local consortia to develop item-banks for non-FCAT tested courses and grade levels, with the goal of developing methods to apply a similar value-added calculation to calculate student growth for teachers in these areas.

59


Because these tests and value-added calculations will not be in place for 2011-2012, the only alternative is to apply the FCAT Reading and/or Math value-added mean averages to teachers in non-FCAT tested grade levels and subject areas.

Teachers and Administrators will work with Area Superintendents to determine targets based on whole-school or collaborative team value-added scores.

60


Brevard Performance Appraisal Model

61

Professional Practices Ratings

Distinguished

Proficient

Professional Support Needed

Unsatisfactory

62

Final Evaluation Ratings

Highly Effective

Effective

Needs Improvement

Unsatisfactory

Final Scores to be determined

63

Documents

Performance Appraisal Systems. Desired Outcomes By the end of this session we will have an understanding of the following: A new model for teacher evaluation