1

Teacher Evaluation System UpdateTeacher Evaluation System Update

Presented byL i T E ti Di t V i G i Di tLuis Tamez, Executive Director Veronica Garcia, DirectorHuman Resources Human Resources

December 8, 2011

2

December 8, 2011

Board Update SummaryEngagement Design

Surveys (district-wide and through website) 161 Principal responses 3,981 Teacher responses 71 Parent responses

Engagement DesignContinue to refine project direction Established a common understanding on the

project direction Continue to obtain teacher and principal input 71 Parent responses

Focus groups and interviews 99 Principals engaged 138 Teachers engaged 50+ Parents engaged

Committees/ Virtual feedback panel

p p pregarding strengths and areas of improvement with current teacher evaluation system

Define teacher rubric Draft rubric of effective teaching

4 domainsCommittees/ Virtual feedback panel 12 Principals engaged 109 Teacher engaged 17 Parents engaged

Information briefings in every Trustee district 10/12, 10/19, 10/25, 11/7, 11/8,11/9,11/14, 11/29

27 indicators 4 performance categories

Define components of teacher evaluation Qualitative evidence

Potential components: peer feedback, portfolio evaluation lesson plan review and self-10/12, 10/19, 10/25, 11/7, 11/8,11/9,11/14, 11/29

Pushed communication Monthly E-blasts, media releases, website updates Sharing preliminary design efforts through

SBDMs in December and January

evaluation, lesson plan review and selfreflection

Quantitative elements Considering a mix of student growth and value-

added, school performance

Upcoming events/meetings in December

3

Dec 5: Qualitative Sub-Committee Meeting Dec 6: Principal Feeder Pattern Meeting (on engaging SBDMs), Teacher

Evaluation System Input Committee Dec 7: All Principal’s Meeting, Teacher Org Focus Groups, Design

Committee Meeting

Dec 9: Rubric design session (tentative) Dec 12: Counselors Focus Group, Special Education Teachers Focus

Group Dec 13: Librarian Focus Group, ELL Focus Group Dec 14: Psychologists Focus Group (tentative)

Upcoming events/meetings in December

Agenda

The need for a new evaluation

Project overview

Designing with input

Next steps

4

Internal analysis shows the current state ofInternal analysis shows the current state of performance evaluation

98% of 10,248 teachers evaluated in 2010-11 received a

… this was true for teachers evaluated under PDAS, PCAS,

… and at AU campuses, where 16 campuses did not rate

“meets expectations” rating…

and LPDAS… a single teacher as “below expectations”.

Of the 34 campuses rated “Academically Unacceptable”, only 18 campuses rated any teacher “below expectations” overall

Below expectations,

2% (221)

2% 2% 0%

80%

100%

Meets expectations, 98% (10,027)

98% 98% 100%

20%

40%

60% BELOW EXPECTATIONS

MEET EXPECTATIONS

50%

20%

PDAS PCSAS LPDAS

We know teachers matter so we need to pay moreWe know teachers matter, so we need to pay more attention to the work they do in the classroom

Principal observations are too few Multiple measures to prevent

What we’ve heard… How we’re responding…

Principal observations are too few and too subjective

Evaluations have nothing to do

Multiple measures to prevent subjectivity / multiple observations

Evaluation activities directly tied to with development

It is not clear how ratings are determined

developmental feedback

Clear weighting and process outlined in the systemdetermined

Where is the student outcome piece?

outlined in the system

Multiple measures including student achievement

6

Agenda

The need for a new evaluation

Project overview

Designing with input

Next steps

7

Project vision

Identify excellence Help every teacher get better

Create lasting impact

• Multiple measuresResearch shows that finding and using

• Multiple forms of feedback for every teacher

• Alignment with HR and T&LIn order to motivate

multiple measures to accurately identify excellence

• Student data

Instilling feedback systems in the district must start with multiple forms of feedback such

itt t d

teachers, evaluations need to be able to recognize, reward and leverage effective teachers in training

Excellent practices are evidenced in student growth. Dallas ISD is committed to including evidence of student

as written notes and verbal conversations.

teachers in training, compensation, and placement. Professional advancement plans will be implemented.

8

evidence of student outcomes.

Three year project plan overview

Define Effective Teacher

Identify Measures

Develop Evaluation

System

Implement System Scale System

ojec

t Pha

se

June-Sept 2011 Aug-Sept 2011/12 Aug-Sept 2011/12 Aug-Jun 2012/13 Aug-Sept 2013/14

System

• Documentation of key measures and design parameters

• Documentation of definitional options and final choices

• Process documentation

F ilit ti d

• Testing phase results and adjustments

T i i d

• Completed teacher evaluation toolkit, including tools

Pro

es design parameters

• Process documentation

• Facilitation and project management

and final choices

• Process documentation

• Facilitation and project

t

• Facilitation and project management

• Training process and materials

• Communications collateral and plan

including tools, processes and technology implementation in every campus

Del

iver

able

management

Designing an integrated evaluation system:Designing an integrated evaluation system: the approach

Step 1: Define Effective Teaching Create rubric with domains and proficiency levels for teacher’s knowledge and

habits of mind.

Step 2: Define Components of Teacher Evaluation Establish which quantitative and qualitative components will comprise the

evaluation systemevaluation system

Step 3: Define Weighting of Components Determine weighting of each evaluation system component for teachers and g g y p

other staff

Step 4: Align Evaluation System S ff Align evaluation system across DISD systems related to teacher effectiveness

including PD, recruiting, principal evaluations, compensation, curriculum and instruction, etc.

Step 1: Define effective teaching

In order to create a comprehensive, applicable, and cohesive definition of teacher effectiveness, a rubric will be created with the following process:

Analyze strengths and opportunities of eight domains currently in place in DISD’s PDAS and Performance Pay Program

Consult nation-wide frameworks: DC’s Teaching & Learning Framework, NorthConsult nation wide frameworks: DC s Teaching & Learning Framework, North Star Academy’s Teacher Evaluation Rubric, Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching, Houston, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, etc.

Consult evidence based best practice tools: Teacher Evaluation Experts: Consult evidence-based, best practice tools: Teacher Evaluation Experts: Robert Marzano, Kim Marshall, Charlotte Danielson. Other tools: Understanding By Design, Skillful Teacher, Teaching As Leadership, etc.

From these analyses, draft frameworks will be developed to share and test with various stakeholders.

Step 2: Define components of teacherStep 2: Define components of teacher evaluation

P t ti l C tPotential Components:

Effective Teaching Instructional Rubric- created by augmenting current tools with new best practice frameworks. Observations Process – determine the process for observation of effective instruction

(frequency, observer, feedback cycle) Portfolio review

Student Outcomes Standardized Assessments - determine relative emphasis of STARS, TAKS, ITBS, EOC, interim

assessments and diagnostics. State Assessment value added measures growth measures State Assessment– value added measures, growth measures DISD Assessments – School Effectiveness Index, Classroom Effectiveness Index Other Assessments – projects, formative assessments, other classroom

F db k Feedback Self-assessment Feedback from others: colleagues, parents, students, supervisors

Step 3: Define weighting of components

Determine weighting of potential components for teachers

Decide how the system applies to different subsets of teachers (core classroom, tested subject teachers, non-tested subject teachers) and non-classroom, tested subject teachers, non tested subject teachers) and nonteaching staff

Decide if/how the system applies to non-teaching staff

Key questions to consider:

What will be the relative weight of teacher outcomes (effective teaching rubric feedback) compared with student outcomes?rubric, feedback) compared with student outcomes?

How much weight will student outcomes receive?

If there are multiple constituents providing qualitative feedback, how will this be weighted?

How will the weighting differ for non-teaching staff?

Step 4: Aligning the system

Ongoing Performance Management

Career Tracking& SuccessionPlanning

Staffing & Allocation Models

Compensation&Rewards/Recognition

Professional Dev’t & Leadership Dev’tAccess & Delivery

Qualitative:• Skill/will or Perf./Potential

Quantitative:• Growth/Value-added data

Evaluation: Tool & Process

Data Tools & Support

• Observation/360s• Evaluation rubrics

• Achievement data• Formative assessments

14

Data Tools & Support

The work is being designed by multipleThe work is being designed by multiple committees

Teacher Evaluation CommitteeSteering Committee Design Committee

Role Role Role This committee will

designate owners and monitor progress of work streams and have accountability for developing

This committee will govern key decisions in the teacher evaluation system development and will be given broad stakeholder

This committee will be engaged to discuss and deliver feedback at major milestones during the development of the teacher y p g

the evaluation system. Timing Bi-Monthly / Monthly Membership (10-15)

ginput.

Timing Monthly Membership (7)

pevaluation system.

Timing Every 2 months Membership (~35)

Central office department reps

Sr. Executive Director reps Principals Teachers

Superintendent Chiefs of Districts Attorney

Central officer reps Teacher Organizations Community Partners Business Partners Parent Organizations

15

Parent Organizations Principals Teachers Attorney

iDesign Work Progress Report

D i t l t d Design steps toDesign steps currently

Step 1: Begin to define

Design steps completed(Jul-Oct)

Design steps to happen next(Jan-April)

Design steps currently underway(Nov-Feb)

Step 1: Continue to define Step 4: Define weighting of t

p gproject directionObtained teacher input

regarding strengths and areas of improvement

project direction Work with teachers to

establish a common vision for the project to be

d t d bl d f i

components Work with teachers to

determine weighting of each evaluation system component for teachers andwith current teacher

evaluation systemEstablished a common

understanding on the j t di ti

understandable and fairStep 2: Define teacher rubric Work with teachers to

create a rubric with

component for teachers and other staff

Step 5: Align evaluation system Work with teachers to align

evaluation system acrossproject directionWorked with teachers to

identify best starting point for teacher evaluation system design

domains and proficiency levels

Step 3: Define components of teacher evaluation

evaluation system across Dallas ISD systems related to teacher effectiveness including professional development, recruiting, system design

Followed up with teachers on each committee for feedback

16

Work with teachers to establish quantitative and qualitative components to include in the system

principal evaluations, compensation, curriculum and instruction, etc.

Agenda

The need for a new evaluation

Project overview

Designing with input

Next steps

17

Focus on stakeholder feedback and input

~1,400 hours have been invested to provide input on the

…more than 50,000 communications have been extended

… all stakeholders can learn about the project through a website, board

system design… about the project… briefings, & public info sessions.

• More than 270 people engaged through focus groups and interviewso 130 teachers, 96 principals, 30 central office, 10 community

• Public information sessions in every districto 4 completed, 5 more scheduled

• 15 Committee meetings with 100 participantso Committees: Steering Committee, Design Committee, Input Committee,

Effective Teaching subcommittee, Evidence subcommittee, Quantitative subcommittee

Key engagement activities

18

• Principal meetings by Learning Communityo 8 meetings reaching all DISD principals

• Launch of DISD Teacher Evaluation System website• 4 E-Blasts each reaching 10,000+ employees• Media press release

o 30 teachers, 19 principals, 30 central office, 20 community• More than 3700 responses via surveys and website

o 3129 teachers via surveyo 145 principals via surveyo ~300 via website (including 200 teachers, 60 parents, 10 business)

• Monthly board briefings

Multiple stakeholders are involved in theMultiple stakeholders are involved in the design of the new system

Teachers

Principals / APs

Non-profit orgs APs

Texas

orgs

Design of new Teacher

Evaluation

ParentsTexas

Education Agency

Students Central office staff

19

Business and

community members

Association partners

Website dedicated to providing updatesWebsite dedicated to providing updates and gathering input from all stakeholders

Join a virtualfeedback team through email

Learn about progress in design

Provide feedback

20

through onlinesurveys

Feedback is changing the design

T h P i i l C itTeachers Principals Community

What we’ve heard

• The system must be “doable” and focus on instruction

• The system must focus on feedback & development

N b CEI

• Focus on feedback AND accountability to support better instruction for children

• Would like to see greater accountability using data

• Nervous about CEI scores being tied to accountability

Design changes

children

• Focus on “doability”

• Rubric will focus on instruction

• Focus on feedback and coaching

F l

Design changes• Focus on feedback and

the use of data

21

instruction

• Include significant quantitative component

• Focus on clear communication about the system and data

Agenda

The need for a new evaluation

Project overview

Designing with input

Next steps

22

Next steps

Develop draft components of teacher evaluation

Rubric of effective teaching

Qualitative measures

Quantitative measuresQuantitative measures

Test draft components with volunteer schools and teachers

Refine components based on feedback

P t i i f il t Prepare training for pilot year23

C C l d (D b )Current Calendar (December)Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday FridayMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Nov 28 Nov 29• New teacher focus group

5pm• District 9 Public

Information Session in the Sk li Hi h S h l f

Nov 30•STAR Employee Commission mtgAdministration Bldg 6 pm

1 2

Skyline High School from 6-7pm

5Qualitative sub-committee (4:30pm)

6• Principal Feeder Pattern

MeetingT h E l ti

7• All Principals’ meeting• Teacher Org Focus Groups

M ti ith B i

8 9• (Tentative) Rubric

Design Session • Teacher Evaluation

System Input Committee meeting

• Meeting with Business Representative

• Design Committee meeting

12• Counselors Focus Group

13• Librarian Focus Group at

14• Parent focus group (tentative)

15 16Counselors Focus Group 4:30pm at Spence MS

• Special Education Teachers Focus Group 4:30pm at Cesar Chavez

Librarian Focus Group at 4:30pm Spence MS

• ELL Teacher Focus Group 4:30pm at Cesar Chavez

Parent focus group (tentative)• Psychologists Focus Group

(tentative)

19 20 21 22 23

24

Holiday Holiday Holiday Holiday Holiday

26Holiday

27Holiday

28Holiday

29Holiday

30Holiday

Teacher Evaluation SystemTeacher Evaluation System Update

Q&AQ&A25

26