UEA Evaluation Organizing Project

August 8, 2013

Insert EOP logo

Welcome

• Thank you!

• Webinar protocol

Please mute phone; ask any questions through Q&A section online

If you have technical questions start a “private chat” with “host” Paul Chadwick

Use “chat box” for community discussions

Agenda

• Educators Taking the Lead

• Roles and expectations

• Evaluation components District observation tools

• Timeline

• Communication

• Policies affecting evaluation

Roles and Expectations

• Evaluation Organizing Project (EOP) Workgroup

• State Evaluation Experts

• UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts

• UniServ “Dream Teams”

• NEA

EOP Workgroup

• Who?UniServ Directors, local presidents, UEA staff

• What?Meet twice a month to identify needs and develop resources to support UEA and UniServ work on the Evaluation Organizing Project

Assess and adjust work based on progress and needs in UniServs

State Evaluation Experts

• Who?Signe Balluf (Davis)Gay Beck (Alpine)Dessie Olsen (Salt Lake)

• What?Design and deliver training to UniServ Evaluation Experts and Dream Teams The Utah Effective Teaching Standards and

engaging in reflective practice Student Learning Objectives and improving

student performance

UniServ/Local Evaluation Experts

• Who?Highly skilled classroom teachers identified by UniServs and locals

• What? Receive in-depth training on Utah evaluation

framework and evaluation issues

Work with UniServ/local to support evaluation organizing efforts

UniServ “Dream Teams”

• Who?UniServ Directors, local presidents and vice presidents, Board members, membership chairs, etc.

• What?Design and implement an organizing plan to support current members and grow membership by using evaluation-related resources developed by the EOP Workgroup and the knowledge of UniServ evaluation experts

NEA

• Who?

Bev Johnson and Sara Gjerdrum

• What?

Work with UniServ and local leaders to facilitate project

Required Evaluation ComponentsDistricts must include the following minimum criteria in their evaluation system (although they can also choose to include other criteria beyond those listed)

Teachers:

• Observations of instructional quality

• Evidence of student growth

• Parent and student input

Administrators:

• Observations of leadership quality

• Evidence of student growth

• Parent, student and employee input

• Effectiveness of evaluating employee performance

District Observation Tools for 2013-14

Public Educator Evaluation Requirements (PEER) Advisory CommitteeDistrict Evaluation Plan Review: August 2, 2013

DistrictApproval Status

NC=Non-Compliant C=CompliantCC=Compliant w/comments

CommentsUSOE Model

Observation Tool

Teacher Leader

Alpine C X X

Beaver C X X

Box Elder C X X

Cache C X X

Canyons C X

Carbon C X X

Daggett C X X

Davis C Creating their own

Duchesne C X

Emery C X X

Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)

District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader

Garfield C X X

Grand C Creating their own

Granite C *5 year plan Creating their own

Iron C X X

Jordan C X

Juab C X X

Kane C X X

Logan CPiloting 2 systems

In 2013-2014

Millard C *5 year plan X X

Morgan C X X

Murray C X X

Nebo C X X

North Sanpete C X X

Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)

District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader

North Summit C X X

Ogden C Creating their own

Park City C Creating their own

Piute C X X

Provo C X X

Rich C X X

Salt Lake C X

San Juan C X X

Sevier C X X

South Sanpete C X

South Summit C X X

Tintic C X X

Tooele C X X

Observation Tools for 2013-14 (Cont.)

District Approval Status Comments Teacher Leader

Uintah C X

USDB C X

Wasatch C X X

Washington C Creating their own

Wayne C X X

Weber C X

2013 – 2014 Observation Tool Participants

• 12 pilot districts (remaining from the total of 16 pilot districts in 2012‐2013)

• 23 new adopting districts

• 29 districts adopting the teaching observation tool

• 36 districts adopting the leadership observation tool

• 6 districts developing different models (Davis, Grand, Granite, Ogden, Park City, USDB, Washington)

Timeline

• Save the Date!September 21, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

Training on the Utah Effective Teaching Standards and gathering evidence to support evaluation Held at the UEA Building

Details about hotel/mileage, hours and complete agenda will be sent in the next few weeks

Timeline (cont.)

• Second training on the standards and observation tool is tentatively scheduled for November

• Training on student growth and student learning objectives (SLOs) is scheduled for January Some trainings may occur regionally rather

than at UEA

Timeline (cont.)

• UEA Convention October 17, 2013 Evaluation-related professional

development workshops¨ What Teachers Can Do to Take Charge

of Their Own Professionalism

¨ Making the New Utah Effective Teaching Standards Work for You (NEA Academy)

Communication

• Back to school email message and video

• “Welcome Back” letter

• EOP Meeting Summary

• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting the Educators Taking the Lead project

• Monthly UEA eNewsletter article highlighting one or two teaching standards

Communication (cont.)

• eNewsletter articles on the standards

September Standard 9: Leadership & CollaborationStandard 10: Professional & Ethical Standards

October Standard 6: Instructional Planning

November Standard 7: Instructional Strategies

December None

January Standard 1: Learning DevelopmentStandard 2: Learning Differences

February Standard 3: Learner & Learning Environments

March Standard 8: Reflection & Continuous Growth

April Standard 4: Content KnowledgeStandard 5: Assessment

Policies Affecting Evaluation

• Computer Adaptive Testing

• School Grading

Computer Adaptive Testing

• Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE) Replaces current CRTs

Aligned to the new Utah Core Curriculum

Assesses ELA, Math, Science grades 3-12

Summative, interim and formative assessments available

Computer Adaptive Testing (cont.)

• Implementation Fall 2013: Formative assessments available

¨ Replaces UTIPS but UTIPS available during transition

Spring 2014: Summative assessments begin¨ Results not available until July 2014

Fall 2014: Interim assessments available

Spring 2015: Summative assessments continue¨ Results available immediately

A professional development plan for educators about the new assessment system is included in the implementation process but has not yet been developed

• SAGE details available at http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System.aspx

School Grading• Utah Comprehensive Accountability System

(UCAS) Resulted from SB 59 in 2011 legislative session

¨ UEA opposed SB 59 but once it passed participated in a workgroup with USSA, USBA, PTA, USOE and districts to help design UCAS

Replaced UPASS as school accountability system

Provides school level assessment and accountability information to the public

First reports published in 2012 (no letter grades assigned)

Adopted as Utah’s federal accountability system

School Grading (cont.)

• SB 271 3S School Grading Amendments Passed 2013 Legislature

¨ UEA opposed SB 271 3S during legislative session and asked Governor to veto the bill when it passed the legislature

Creates a second, separate accountability system¨ UCAS will report school performance for federal

requirements and SB 271 3S will report school performance for state requirements

School grades expected to published Sept 1, 2013

School Grading (cont.)

UCAS

Student growth is measured along a continuum and counts for every student:

• Low growth = low points

• High growth = high points

Requires a fixed standard to measure “sufficient growth”, currently set at the 40th percentile:

• Students below 40th percentile = zero points

• All students above 40th percentile = same points

SB 271 3S

School Grading (cont.)

• Currently, it is expected that both UCAS and SB271 3S school performance reports will be calculated and published separately on the USOE website on Sept 1, 2013

• The State Board of Education has indicated that school grades will only be published for SB 271 3S (as required by law)

Questions?