Teacher Incentive Allotment Committee MeetingTeacher Evaluations

3-3-21

TIA Meeting and Application Timelines Date Topic Agenda

Wed., Feb. 24th Student Growth 1.Assessment Tool

2.Grades/Teachers Eligible

3.Growth Cutoff Percentages for designations

4.Minimum growth qualifier

Friday, March 5th (Deadline) Campus principals and TIA representatives present the TIA PPT to staff

Wed. March 3rd Teacher Evaluation 1.Evaluation cut off for designations

2.Minimum evaluation qualifier

3.Average score vs SKR

4.Teachers Eligible

Wed. March 10th Formula for Designation 1.Percentage weights for growth and evaluations

2.Other factors in the formula

3.Average and minimum qualifiers for designation points

Wed. March 24th Review Final Plan and Get Feedback

Fri., April 2nd Principal and TIA representative present to staff and discuss survey- answer questions

Thurs., April 15th TIA Application Deadline

Follow up Stakeholder Discussion from Student Performance Meeting on 2-24-21

The committee decided on the following:

•Using the NWEA MAP Test as the measure for student growth for K-12 Math and Reading Teacher

•Phase in other teachers over time after we are more familiar with the MAPS assessment and have examined student portfolios or SLOs for non math and reading teachers.

Question- What about SPED and other teachers like Reading Interventionists? Will they be eligible? The teacher of record will need at least 10 full time students to take the NWEA MAP test in order to accurately have data to reflect student growth.

All other teachers would have to wait to be phased in over time.

TODAY’S FOCUS IS ON TEACHER EVALUATIONS 3-3-21

Leaders

analyze data

for skew and

correlation

Leaders retrain

and develop

appraisers

Summer-August

May-Summer

THE FLOW OF THE YEAR

Appraisers

observe

teachers• Analyze the data

• Make a plan

• Certify and Calibrate

Analyze

observation data

September-May

VALIDITY VS. RELIABILITY

Reliability: the extent to which the results are consistent

Will a teacher be rated in the same way no matter who their appraiser is or where they teach?

Validity: the extent to which something measures what it claims to measure

Does our tool accurately measure teacher effectiveness?

ANALYZE THE DATAUsing teacher observation from last year (or multiple years!), ask…

Where was there skew?

◦ By appraiser◦ By campus◦ By subject◦ By grade level◦ By teacher demographic

Where was there lack of correlation between observation data and student growth data?

TIA Tip: Review teacher observation data as part of your system design

process!

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

A B C D E F G H I J K

T-TESS Average by CampusCHECK FOR SKEW

B B B B BABCBB

School Accountability Ratings

By campus

By appraiser

By subject

By grade level

B

CHECK FOR SKEW By campus

By appraiser

By subject

By grade level

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Johnson Martinez Williams Rodriguez Jones Hernandez Brown David

T-TESS Average by Appraiser

CHECK FOR SKEW By campus

By appraiser

By subject

By grade level

0

1

2

3

4

5

T-TESS Average by Subject

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

STAAR Tested Non-STAAR Tested

T-TESS Average: STAAR-Tested vs. Non STAAR-Tested

CHECK FOR SKEW By campus

By appraiser

By subject

By grade level

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

PK-1st 2nd-3rd 4th-5th 6th-8th 9th-10th 11th-12th

T-TESS Average by Grade Band

Series 1

Areas of Skew to target:

• Rated inexplicably higher

or lower than the rest of

the district:

• Pk-1st and 2nd-3rd

grade level bands

• Non-STAAR tested

teachers

• A few individual

appraisers

GOALD E S I G N A T I O N V E R I F I C A T I O N

Verify the evidence generated from designation systems based on district data

(observations & growth) and state-level data (value-added model [VAM]).

• Student growth score

• Teacher observation score

Step 1: Districts submit data to Texas Tech:

• “All” eligible teachers including those who earned or did not earn a designation

(Master, Exemplary, Recognized)

PROCESSD E S I G N A T I O N V E R I F I C A T I O N

PROCESSD E S I G N A T I O N V E R I F I C A T I O N

Steps 2 and 3:

TTU analyzes district data using the verification rubric, and report analysis results to

TEA.

• 4 domains (A-D)

• 10 indicators (1-10)

A

D

B

C

Relation of ratings between

teacher observation and

student growth

4 Domains

VERIFICATION RUBRICD E S I G N A T I O N V E R I F I C A T I O N

Relation of ratings between

student growth and value-

added model

Consistency of

designation rates to

statewide performance

standards

Consistency of ratings

across campus and

teaching assignment

QUESTIONSD E S I G N A T I O N V E R I F I C A T I O N

Q. What are the consequences if the verification score is low for my district?

A. TEA will take into consideration of the verification analysis results when they make

the final decision about system approval.

Sources to help with Inter-rater Reliability

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g9Y3WAIHFTT6bgZZaTLA5ytmxU7jpLpp/view?usp=sharing

Stakeholder Questions Teacher Evaluations

1.Do we want to go with the state standards for T-TESS or develop our own standards?

2.Should we say that a person has to at least be proficient (have a 3) in all areas and a minimum of 3.5 for the average score?

3.What part of the rubric will be used for TIA and teacher evaluations (Planning, Instruction, Environment – if not using SKR)?

Statewide Teacher Observation Minimum T-TESS Ratings

The following shows the minimum average scores across T-TESS domains 2 and 3 to achieve each level of designation

(Recognized, Exemplary, and Master). The minimum average scores were derived from an analysis of T-TESS observations

from across the state with scores on a 1 to 5 scale.

T-TESS Dimensions – 1: Planning, 2: Instruction, 3: Learning Environment, 4: Professional Practices and Responsibilities

NIET TAP Dimensions – 1:Instruction, 2: Environment, 3: Planning, 4: Responsibilities

NOTE: Traditionally, 50% of LISD teachers had a 3.5 or higher SKR score.

State wide Teacher Observation Minimum Average Rating State Percentile LISD

Recognized 3.7 (74% of possible points)

At least 3 (proficient on all dimensions)

67th percentile 3.5 average score required

Exemplary 3.9 (78% of possible points)

At least 3 (proficient on all dimensions)

80th percentile 3.5 average score required

Master 4.5 (90% of possible points)

At least 3 (proficient on all dimensions)

95th percentile 3.5 average score required

Notes about SKR vs. Average Score

• The SKR score only rounds up to half point increments. For example:

3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc…

• The SKR score includes the Responsibility portion of the rubric and

the teacher self evaluation scores.

• The average score can reflect scores at various decimal points to the

hundredths place.

• The average score leaves more flexibility to earn a distinction.

Stakeholder Questions Teacher Evaluations

1.Do we want to go with the state standards for T-TESS or develop our own standards?

2.Should we say that a person has to at least be proficient (have a 3) in all areas and a minimum of 3.5 for the average score?

3.What part of the rubric will be used for TIA and teacher evaluations (Planning, Instruction, Environment – if not using SKR)?

Next Steps

• Campus Principals will meet with their staff to provide an overview of the

Teacher Incentive Allotment by March 5, 2021.

• The Communications Department will send out information districtwide

about the Teacher Incentive Allotment and add information to our TIA

website after each Committee Meeting.

https://www.lancasterisd.org/domain/1472.

• Teachers will have the opportunity to meet with their principal and/or TIA

representative to ask questions before the application deadline.

Additional Training Resources

https://tea.tiatexas.org/category/teacher-

observation-resources-d/page/3/

Are there any questions?