Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning Objectives

Adriane Dorrington, NEA; Géraldine Duval, MSEA; Julie Longchamp VT- NEA

Agenda

• National Update of Teacher Evaluation Systems• Waivers - Status & Impact• Current Research on VAMs• Multiple Measures – Student Learning Objectives • Overview of Eight State SLO Consortium• Q & A

The ultimate goal of all teacher evaluation should be…

TO IMPROVE TEACHING

AND LEARNING

Instructional Practice

Growth and Contributions

Student Growth & LearningSelf-assessment

PortfoliosObservations

Artifacts

Leadership rolesProf. DevelopFamily EngageGrowth Plans

Achievement Data Performances

PortfoliosProjects

TEACHING & LEARNING CONDITIONS

Multiple Measures

Recent Research (Polikoff, Porter 2014)

•To what extent is the alignment of teachers’ reported instruction with the content of standards and assessments associated with value added to student achievement

•To what extent does measures of pedagogical quality moderate the relationship of instructional alignment with value added to student achievement

•To what extent is the alignment of teachers’ reported instruction associated with a composite measure of teacher effectiveness (Polikoff, Porter 2014)

Research Findings

•Modest to zero-order correlations when exploring instructional alignment to VAM scores

•Weak relationship when controlling for pedagogical quality

•Association of instructional alignment with VAM is more positive when pedagogical quality is high

•No evidence of association on instructional alignment with a composite measure of teaching

Summary of Findings

•Results are disappointing:•Very weak associations of content alignment with student gains and no association with the composite measures of effective teaching

•Possible interpretations:•Instructional alignment and pedagogical quality are not as important as standards-based reform theory suggest in affecting student learning•SEC and FFT do not capture the important elements of instruction•Tests used for calculating VAMs are not able to detect difference in content or quality of instruction

PRO-VAMs RESEARCH Findings

•VAMs VAMs

Value Added

Measures

Challenges???

GATES: MET’s Study: Weighting of Measures

Multiple Measures Considerations

• Are the measures purposeful and deliberate

• Are the measures aligned with the systems goals

• How are the measures counted• What is the quality of the measure

Multiple Measures Concerns

Combining scores into a single overall score

• Challenging and are based on assumptions and choices• Combinations can impact precision and diagnostic capabilities

Measures with high variance will have a greater impact on findings• Irrespective of having similar weightings

Different information available for different teachers• Beginning teachers, new teachers, teachers in non-tested

areas, missing data

STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

A VIABLE MULTIPLE MEASURE

United States Department of Education Reprieve on Teacher Evaluation

Source: http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/nclbwaivers.html

Your Waiver Reality?

At your tables:

• Describe the conditions of your waiver• Requirements for teacher evaluation• Amendments to your waivers• What are considered “high stakes” in your evaluation

process?• Share out

•A course-long academic goal for students set by the teacher based on the teacher’s knowledge of students and knowledge of content

•A goal that demonstrates a teacher’s impact on student learning within a given interval of instruction

•A measure of student growth and professional practice

What Is an SLO?

The SLO Evaluation Cycle

•Teachers report an increased focus on student achievement and data use as a result of the SLO goal-setting process.

•Teachers using SLOs value the opportunity to analyze data and plan instruction as part of the SLO process.

•Teachers report feeling “empowered” •Some positive correlations have been found between the:

•quality of SLOs and student achievement•number of objectives met by teachers and students

•SLO approaches vary significantly

What Does Early Research Suggest?

•Teachers highlight concerns over evaluator skill and guidance in the SLO process.

•SLOs require quality assessments.•Clear communication about SLOs is paramount.•SLOs require time and access to quality data.•SLOs frequently present a learning curve.•Training for teachers is a vital part of successful implementation.

(*These results should be used with caution. Proceed with caution when making inferences about these finding)

What Does Early Research Suggest?

•Teachers value collaboration fostered by the SLO process.•Teachers with more experience implementing SLOs may hold more favorable perceptions of the SLO process.

•Teachers are concerned about using SLOs in high stakes decisions.•The process may improve over time.

(*These results should be used with caution. Proceed with caution when making inferences about these finding)

What Does Early Research Suggest?

•SLOs reinforce evidence-based teaching practices.•SLOs can be used with all teachers.•SLOs are adaptable.•SLOs encourage collaboration.•SLOs acknowledge the value of educator knowledge and skill.

•SLOs connect teacher practice to student learning.

Why Use SLOs?

Perspectives from the Field: NEA 8-State SLO Consortium

Eight States

• Met in Minnesota - 11 or so per state including teachers, administrators, state agency folks

• Training on SLOs from AIR• Team time to develop next steps including summer

training• Meet virtually on Tandberg to discuss successes and

challenges and support each other - quarterly• April ‘15 - Next face-to-face meeting

Idaho

• No state level activity• Invited group of stakeholders to MN April ‘14• Working on developing state-level relationships in

order to inform teacher evaluation• Future grant to build state-level expertise

New Hampshire

State is using for four overarching domains from InTASC

1. Learners and Learning2. Content Knowledge3. Learning Facilitation Practice4. Professional Responsibilities

Relying on local control to develop systems for educator support and evaluation

School-wide Title I schools or targeted assistance schools must have 20% of educators’ evaluation based on student learning. Districts have flexibility about what should be used to determine students growth but Title I districts must use SLOs and student growth percentiles. They may use additional data points for student learning as well.

South Carolina

➢ April -14 Summit included SCEA President, members, State Agency of Education and SC Association of School Administrators

➢ June ‘14 - 3-day Training in SC and developed training session for leaders who presented at the Fall Conference

➢ Has collaborated with Wyoming and SD➢ Current focus on developing a database of SLOs in all areas and

looking for guidance in the fine arts.

South Dakota

• Jointly with DOE trained 5400 teachers across the state in content area specific SLO trainings: 1 day on SLO’s, 1 day on assessment.• Summer 2014 SLO Bootcamp:

trained 60 members to train others on SLO’s• This fall trainers are working both in school districts, providing

regional trainings, and local trainings• 2014-2015 is a state-wide pilot year for SLO’s and Teacher

Effectiveness System• Working on SLO Repository and Boot Camp II Summer 2015:

Advanced Assessment

Utah

➢ Summer introduction and initial training on SLOs with the Utah State Office of Education 2014

➢ Established building level SLO Leads to support members through the process➢ Development of an Assessment Literacy Task Force to create assessment literacy

curriculum for members as it relates to SLOs 2014➢ Pilot of SLOs in specific schools begins in February 2014➢ Selection of UEA members in SLO pilot schools to develop resources for UEA

members 2015➢ Summer Leadership Academy 2015 focused on SLOs

Sharon Gallagher-Fishbaugh - Utah Contact

Vermont

• Non-waiver state• Summer Introduction and Training on SLOs - Summer ‘14• Several people “trying them out”• New Secretary of Education put the Task Force for Teacher

Effectiveness on hold and began to concentrate on the Principal Evaluation.

• Vermont-NEA met with Deputy to discuss creating a model that school districts may adopt

• Result: The Task Force will reconvene• Summer ‘15- Rick Wormelli Keynote Speaker, Standards-Based

Learning - Focusing SLOs on Standards and Proficiencies

Wyoming➢ Non-waiver state

➢ Legislative Sub Committee working on statewide accountability which includes school, leader, and teacher evaluation systems.

➢ The proposed teacher evaluation system has student growth as one component and SLO’s are listed as an appropriate way to measure student growth in combination with the state test.

➢ Introduction on SLO’s presented at all of our Fall WEA Retreats around the state.

➢ Informational booth at our statewide School Improvement Conference to inform administrators and teachers about SLO’s.

➢ SLO training open to all members in our largest school district to be held November 16 - 18

Maryland• Signed a SLO MOU - work jointly on training, resources, and messaging

• State Department, MD Association of Boards of Education, • 2 principals associations, the superintendents association, • the Baltimore Teachers Union and two other unions

• Summer Leadership Training – identified members from affiliates to participate in a training

done by CTAC

• The State Department revamped its administrator trainings to now include teams from each district. There are up to eight people per district team, two of them teachers chosen by the Association

• Monthly calls - set up by our school quality staff with the members of our SLO Cadre members

to share and discuss what is being done in their district with the SLO trainings

• Future: meet with the MOU signers to discuss the collaborative efforts and progress of SLO’s in Maryland State Education Association

Next Steps

• April - ‘15 - Convene 3 people from each state• Review the status of the grant• Share ideas• Share materials• Synthesize how we can improve our work in each

state• HI will joining the consortium pending GPS Grant

approval

Effective Practices Emerging?

What effective practices are you seeing in the field in implementing Student Learning Objectives?

Questions

What are your questions regarding SLO Implementation?

Example: How do SLOs created individually differ from those created in collaborative groups?