Linda K. BarkerDirector of Teaching and LearningColorado Education AssociationUpdate of State Council on Educator Effectiveness Recommendations

1Guiding PrinciplesData should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process.Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.

State RequirementsConduct performance evaluations for all teachers and principals at least once each school year.

Base at least half of each teachers and principals evaluation on multiple measures of students academic growth (CSAP, as appropriate, plus other growth data).

Requires all teachers and principals in one of at least three performance standards, highly effective, effective, partially effective, or ineffective.

Award non-probationary status to teachers with three consecutive years of effective performance and remove it for those who are not effective for two consecutive years.

Consider factors such as student mobility and the numbers of students with disabilities or at risk of failing school.

Require mutual consent of teachers and principals to teacher assignments.

Factor in teacher effectiveness before seniority when considering district-level layoffs.

RequirementsGuided by state law, the Councils work focused on:Defining teacher effectiveness and principal effectiveness.

Defining Quality Standards and elements for teachers and principals.

Establishing performance standards and guidelines for assigning educators to them.

Developing guidelines to districts for a fair, rigorous and transparent system to evaluate teachers and principals.

Recommending state policy changes to prepare, evaluate and support teachers and principals. Eight Key Components

Teacher Evaluation Framework

Weighting of Quality Standards

Common StatewideQuality Standard VI equal to at least 50%Quality Standard I-V equal to no more than 50%Each of Quality Standards I-V are at least 15% of total sub-score evaluation of professional practice performance

District FlexibilityVary weight afforded to each of Quality Standards I-V by up to 25% of total sub-score evaluation of professional practice performance

Measuring Student Growth-QS VI #11-21Measures of Teacher Student GrowthCommon StatewideTechnical guidelines for valid and reliable measuresMultiple measures of student growthInclude statewide summative assessment data where available

District FlexibilityIn collaboration with representatives of local teacher association, districts select measuresIncrease frequency and/or variety of measures collected for novice, ineffective or other categories of teachersAssign teachers to categories based upon quality of available measuresEncouraged to attribute student growth to teams of educatorsMeasures of Growth Categories-#13Category A (state criterion-referenced/standards-based) data: CDE-certified student-level assessment data (e.g. CSAP) that is of a technical quality (standardized, external and objective) that allows student growth to be calculated for personnel in specific grades and subjects using the Colorado Growth Model, and justifies its use as a major portion of the educators student growth score effectiveness evaluation.

Category B: Student-level assessment data collected from district-created or vendor-created assessment tools that are comparable across classrooms with demonstrated rigor which meet CDE guidelines for technical quality. This category may also include assessments such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the SAT and ACT, and other norm-referenced tests. These measures may or may not allow for the calculation of student growth. Category C : Student-level assessment data using unique teacher or school-based measures collected at the school or individual classroom level, which do not meet the higher technical requirements of Category A and Category B data but which do comply with minimal technical guidelines developed by CDE. These measures may be highly valid as measures of student progress/learning against standards, but will not technically allow for the calculation of student growth.

Development of New Student Growth Measures - #45Academic standards for 10 content areas, statewide assessment for 4 in some grades. In order to better measure student growth for the 70% of teachers who teach an untested subject or grade:State shall develop statewide summative assessments in Science and Social Studies.State shall develop or facilitate a state consortium to develop measures of academic outcomes for early childhood.State shall support districts to develop new measures of student growth for other subjects and grades that are aligned with district scope and sequence of curriculum.Pilots will also pilot student growth objectives (SGOs).

Standard I: Teachers demonstrate knowledge of the content they teach.Not EvidentPartially ProficientProficient(Meets State Standard)AccomplishedExemplaryTeachers provide instruction that is aligned with the Colorado Academic Standards and their districts scope and sequence; and is aligned with the individual needs of their students. Teachers use state and district content standards to organize instruction. Where appropriate, teachers investigate the content standards developed by professional organizations in their specialty area. They develop and apply strategies to make the curriculum rigorous and relevant for all students, and to provide a balanced curriculum which incorporates language development, literacy and numeracy across all content areas as appropriate.Employs a limited range of instructional strategies.Does not align instruction with:Lessons learning objective.Colorado Academic Standards.Districts scope and sequence.Needs of students.Employs a wide range of instructional strategies.Aligns instruction with:Lessons learning objective.District scope and sequence.. . . andProvides a balanced curriculum that includes literacy, numeracy, and language development across all content areas.Uses a variety of student-centered, research-based instructional strategies.Bases student groupings on students instructional needs. Uses student achievement data to design or select instructional strategies.Aligns instruction with:Colorado Academic Standards.Education needs of all students.. . . andEstablishes a classroom environment in which students:Use a variety of approaches to learning.Build on the skills and knowledge learned in class to engage in more complex concepts, ideas, and theories.. . . andEnsures that all students in the classroom:Apply skills and knowledge learned in the classroom.Apply literacy, numeracy, and language skills across subject areas and disciplines, and in unique and unfamiliar academic situations.Comments (Required for Ratings of 1 and 2: Artifacts/Evidence of Performance: Overall Rating for Standard IVStandard V: Teachers demonstrate leadershipA: Teachers demonstrate leadership in their schoolsB: Teachers lead the teaching professionC: Teachers advocate for schools and studentsD: Teachers demonstrate high ethical standardsOverall Rating for Standard VStandard VI: Teachers take responsibility for student growthA: Teachers pursue high levels of student growth in academic achievementB: Teachers pursue high levels of student growth in the skills necessary for postsecondary life, including democratic and civic participationC: Teachers use evidence to evaluate their practice and continually improve attainment of student growthOverall Rating for Standard VI[SAMPLE] SUMMARY RATING SHEET FOR TEACHERS12345

Principal Evaluation Framework

Rating by Element54321School Vision, Mission and Strategic GoalsSchool Improvement PlanLeading ChangeDistributive LeadershipCurriculum, Instruction, Learning, and AssessmentInstructional TimeImplementing High Quality InstructionHigh Expectations for All StudentsIntentional and Collaborative School CultureCommitment to the Whole ChildEquity PedagogyEfficacy, Empowerment and a Culture of Continuous ImprovementProfessional Development/Learning CommunitiesRecruiting, Hiring, Placing, Mentoring, and Dismissal of StaffTeacher and Staff EvaluationSchool Resources and BudgetConflict Management and ResolutionSystemic CommunicationSchool-wide Expectations for Students and StaffSupporting Policies and AgreementsFamily and Community Involvement and OutreachProfessional Leadership ResponsibilitiesAdvocacy for the SchoolStudent Academic Achievement and GrowthStudent Growth and DevelopmentUse of DataI.Strategic LeadershipII.Instructional LeadershipIII.School Culture and Equity LeadershipIV.Human Resource LeadershipV.Managerial LeadershipVI.External Development LeadershipVII.Student GrowthOverall Rating by StandardPilots and Integration Districts

Pilots DistrictsPILOT SITES: These districts will pilot the state model evaluation system starting with the Principal Evaluation protocols during the 2011-12 school year.

Pilot site 1:MoffatSouth RouttPilot site 2:Jefferson CountyPilot site 3WrayPilot site 4:KiowaCrowleyMiami-YoderCuster

Pilot site 5Valley RE-1Pilot site 6St. VrainPilot site 7Platte CanyonPilot site 8SalidaDel NorteMountain ValleyCenter

Pilot requirements:Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between your district and CDE regarding your participation in the pilot and field tests. Include, at a minimum, schools within the district from each level (elementary, middle and secondary) in the pilot. District-wide participation is encouraged, but we acknowledge that this may be difficult for larger districts.Participate in training for the principal evaluation provided by CDE during September 2011 (approximately 1.5 days) and for teacher evaluation provided during late spring of 2012 (approximately 1.5 days) as well as some interim training during the initial pilot years.Evaluate principals during the 2011-2012 academic year using the state model system.Provide feedback on the teacher evaluation instruments and system during the 2011-2012 academic year.Provide copies of all evaluation materials and other data identified in the MOU to CDE.

Pilot requirements continued:Participate in interviews and focus groups designed to determine needed changes and to gather ideas for improvement of the system from you and your staff members.Implement both the principal and teacher evaluation processes in your district during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, and provide information and feedback requested by CDE.Attend and actively participate in meetings conducted by CDE related to the development process.Complete a district review including surveys of teachers, principals and district leaders in August 2011, August 2012, August 2013, August 2014, August 2015 and August 2016.Collect and report data to CDE about the pilot process and selected outcomes for a 5-year period from 2011-2016. Please note that much of the information collected during the 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 academic years will be data that districts will be required to report to CDE as part of the new educator effectiveness law.Provide student achievement data that is linked to teachers beginning in the 2012/13 school year. Integration Districts: $9.7 MillionColorado Legacy Foundation will partner with the Colorado Department of Education and four local school districts to accelerate and integrate implementation of new educator performance evaluation systems and the Colorado Academic Standards using instructional tools aligned to those standards. The school districts will be determined later this summer and will serve as demonstration sites. The tools developed and lessons learned from those sites will be shared statewide.

Denver Public SchoolsEagle CountyCentennialThompson SD

Measures

Federal priorities (August 2010)From Race to the Top and reiterated in the August 5, 2010 Federal Register (Vol. 75, No. 150) Secretarys Priorities for Discretionary Grant ProgramsTeachers should be evaluated using state standardized tests where possibleFor non-tested subjects, other measures (including pre- and post-tests) can be used but must be rigorous and comparable across classrooms and must be between two points in timeMultiple measures should be used, such as multiple classroom evaluations30Multiple measures of teacher effectivenessEvidence of growth in student learning and competencyStandardized tests, pre/post tests in untested subjectsStudent performance (art, music, etc.)Curriculum-based tests given in a standardized mannerClassroom-based tests such as DIBELSEvidence of instructional qualityClassroom observationsLesson plans, assignments, and student workStudent surveys such as Harvards TripodEvidence binder (next generation of portfolio)Evidence of professional responsibilityAdministrator/supervisor reports, parent surveysTeacher reflection and self-reports, records of contributions

Measuring teachers contributions to student learning growth: A summary of current modelsModelDescriptionStudent learning objectivesTeachers assess students at beginning of year and set objectives then assesses again at end of year; principal or designee works with teacher, determines successSubject & grade alike team models (Ask a Teacher)Teachers meet in grade-specific and/or subject-specific teams to consider and agree on appropriate measures that they will all use to determine their individual contributions to student learning growthPre-and post-tests modelIdentify or create pre- and post-tests for every grade and subjectSchool-wide value-addedTeachers in tested subjects & grades receive their own value-added score; all other teachers get the school-wide averageNon CSAP tested subjects and gradesMeasuring effectiveness for the other 69 percent is probably the most challenging aspect of including student achievement growth as a component of teacher evaluation.

Non CSAP tested subjects and grades, there are few state models that demonstrate how contributions to student learning growth can be systematically measured and analyzed in ways that allow for differentiation among teachers. Research has not yet been conducted on how such evidence is being used within evaluation systems. 4 types of musical behaviors:

Types of assessment

Responding

Creating

Performing

Listening

RubricsPlaying testsWritten testsPractice sheetsTeacher ObservationPortfoliosPeer and Self-Assessment

Assessing Musical Behaviors: The type of assessment must match the knowledge or skillWhat assessments are teachers and schools going to use?Existing measuresCurriculum-based assessments (come with packaged curriculum)Classroom-based individual testing (DRA, DIBELS)Formative assessments such as NWEAProgress monitoring tools (for Response to Intervention)National tests, certifications testsRigorous new measures (may be teacher created)The 4 Ps: Portfolios/products/performance/projectsSchool-wide or team-based growthPro-rated scores in co-teaching situationsStudent learning objectivesAny measure that demonstrates students growth towards proficiency in appropriate standards

Factors for Consideration:Is there a consensus on the competencies students should achieve in this content area? What assessments/measurements can be used to reliably measure these competencies with validity? Should the use of schoolwide value-added models be considered as a means to measure student progress in non-tested subjects and grades? How will growth in performance subjects (e.g., music, art, physical education) be determined? How will related personnel (caseload educators) be factored into the system? Do these measurements meet all of the federal requirements (i.e., rigorous, between two points in time, and comparable across classrooms)? Are measurements aligned with federal priorities? Can these measurements be applied to all grades and student populations? Options for Measuring Student Growth:Existing tests-end of course Create new assessmentsUse for 4 Psportfolio, products, performances, or projects.Student learning objectivesClassroom based

38

Rubric for student learning objectives39

Rubric for student learning objectives (contd)SLO Model Strengths/WeaknessesStrengthsTeachers take an active role in determining student learning goalsGood professional growth opportunity for teachersIf objectives are of high-quality and teachers plan instruction to meet them, students should benefitWeaknessesHeavily dependent on administrator understanding and time commitment to supervisionNot clear how or if rigor could be determinedNot comparable across classrooms because teachers set the objectives and they will vary widelyNot clear how students beginning point is determined

40ACCURATE ATTRIBUTION OF STUDENT GROWTHDo our data systems allow for the accurate and timely linking of teachers with the students they teach?

What are innovative ways to capture the contribution of a teaching team or an entire school to individual student learning?What characteristics does our linking system need to have in order for teachers to agree that the system is accurate and fair for purposes of evaluation?What support do teachers, principals, and districts need in developing and supporting linking systems and in analyzing and using the information they produce?

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ASSESSMENTS AND STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES (SLOS)What, if any, additional statewide assessments should the state develop?What training and support do teachers and principals need in order to be capable of creating meaningful student learning objectives, and how can that support be most efficiently provided?What support do districts need in developing new assessments? How should the state think about quality control for district-developed assessments?TEACHER QUALITY FRAMEWORK Given the comprehensiveness of the Teacher Quality Standards, under what circumstances and for what teachers does it make sense to prioritize must-haves vs. nice to- haves?

How can teachers be involved in designing classroom observation rubrics that are dynamic and flexible enough to capture a wide range of effective practices?What kinds of trainings do observers and evaluators need in order to ensure consistency across raters within districts and across districts, and how can this training best be delivered?What are the best ways to link professional development offerings with individual teacher needs so that teachers are able to access timely and relevant professional development on an as-needed basis?

Questions/Resources

www.coloradoea.org :Teaching and LearningEducator Effectiveness

www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness