An Overview of the Teacher Appraisal System

Production date: May 11, 2011

Guiding PrincipleBy increasing teacher capacity*, there will be

an improvement in student achievementDevelop and assist teachersNot punitive, but instead creates a

comprehensive teacher evaluation system with focused data collection and a connection to relevant professional development

*Capabilities, education, abilities

BackgroundStakeholder participation

Teachers, Administrators, District-level staff ABCE

Work Groups began meeting in 2010Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Original contract between district and stateReview previous stepsEstablish current statusStudy plans currently underway

Writing Teams met in the Fall of 2010Final Scope of WorkPlan of action

Teacher Appraisal System Committee (TASC)15 member team

ABCE, principals and district staffCollegial relationship for open and honest discussions12 meetings to date (as of May 9, 2011)

Student Success Act and Race to the Top initiatives Student growth componentObservations/Evaluations

Deliver by June 1stObservation/Evaluation, IPDP development,

teacher-level student growth, and school-level student growth

Teacher Appraisal System Percentiles

Administrator observation/evaluation- 35% According to law the system must be based on strong

educational principles and contemporary researchFlorida Educator Accomplished Practices (FEAPS)Robert Marzano and Charlotte Danielson

Marzano 3-day academy and books State model Relatively untested

Danielson Webinar, meetings and books Used throughout the United States Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of

Chicago

Decision: Danielson

The Danielson FrameworkAn effective system of teacher evaluation

accomplishes two things: it ensures quality teaching and it promotes professional learning. The quality of teaching is the single most important determinant of student learning; a school district’s system of teacher evaluation is the method by which it ensures that teaching is of high quality. Therefore, the system developed for teacher evaluation must have certain characteristics; it must be rigorous, valid, reliable and defensible, and must be grounded in a research-based and accepted definition of good teaching. -C. Danielson

Component 1a:

Demonstrating knowledge of content and pedagogy

  Component

1b:Demonstrating

knowledge of students

  Component

1c:Setting

instructional outcomes

  Component

1d:Demonstrating

knowledge of resources

  Component

1e:Designing

coherent instruction

  Component

1f:Designing student

assessments

Component 2a:

Creating an environment of respect and rapport

  Component

2b:Establishing a

culture for learning

  Component

2c:Managing

classroom procedures

  Component

2d:Managing student

behavior  Component

2e:Organizing

physical space

Component 3a:

Communicating with students

  Component

3b:Using questioning

and discussion techniques

  Component

3c:Engaging students

in learning  Component

3d:Using assessment

in instruction  Component

3e:Demonstrating

flexibility and responsiveness

Component 4a:

Reflecting on teaching

  Component

4b:Maintaining

accurate records

  Component

4c: Communicating

with families  Component

4d:Participating in a

professional community

  Component

4e:Growing and

developing professionally

  Component

4f:Showing

professionalism

Domain Summary for the Framework for Teaching

Domain 2: The Classroom EnvironmentComponent Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement or

DevelopingUnsatisfactory

2a: Creating anenvironment of respect andrapport[FEAPs (a)2.d.f.h.; (a)3.e.]

Classroom interactions among the teacher and individual students are highly respectful, reflecting genuine warmth and caring and sensitivity to students’ cultures and levels of development. Students themselves ensure high levels of civility among members of the class.

Classroom interactions between teacher and students and among students are polite and respectful, reflecting general warmth and caring, and are appropriate to the cultural and developmental differences among groups of students.

Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are generally appropriate and free from conflict but may be characterized by occasional displays of insensitivity or lack of responsiveness to cultural or developmental differences among students

Classroom interactions, both between the teacher and students and among students, are negative, inappropriate, or insensitive to students’ cultural backgrounds, and characterized by sarcasm, put-downs, or conflict.

Critical Attributes

In addition to the characteristics of “effective,” •Teacher demonstrates knowledge and caring about individual students’ lives beyond school.•The teacher’s response to a student’s incorrect response respects the student’s dignity.•When necessary, students correct one another in their conduct toward classmates.

• Talk between teacher and students and among students is uniformly respectful.

• Teacher makes connections with individual students.

• Students exhibit respect for the teacher.

• During the lesson, the teacher offers encouragement to students as they struggle with complex learning. This may be 2b, expectations.

• The quality of interactions between teacher and students or among students is uneven, with occasional disrespect.

• Teacher attempts to respond to disrespectful behavior, with uneven results.

• Teacher attempts to make connections with individual students, but student reactions indicate that the efforts are not successful.

• Teacher uses disrespectful talk toward students.

• Student body language indicates feelings of hurt or insecurity.

• Teacher does not address disrespectful interactions among students.

• Teacher displays no familiarity with or caring about individual students’ interests or personalities.

• Students use disrespectful talk toward one another with no response from the teacher.

Evidence

The Danielson FrameworkParadigm shift Pre and post conferences provide opportunities

for open conversations between teachers and administrators about educator practice

Administrators and teachers work collaboratively to look differently at teaching and learning

Teachers become active participants in their observations and evaluations

Evaluation of instructional practices= 35%

IPDP Development-15%Student Baseline Data What specific student achievement data indicates the need for improvement?

Needs-based Question for

Professional Inquiry

In reflecting on this student achievement data, what instructional question(s) come to mind?

Expected Student Achievement Goal(s)

What is your expectation of student achievement as a result of your professional development?

Related Professional Development Objective(s)?

What practice(s) will you need to enhance/develop in order to answer your question and meet your stated student achievement goals?

Related Professional Training & Learning

Activities

How will you use research-based knowledge and strategies that will help you achieve your stated professional development objective(s)?

Classroom Implementation

What practices have you implemented in your classroom as a result of your professional development?

(Examine classroom level data that is disaggregated by student performance level, gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Document this disaggregation.)

(Considering this specific student data, formulate a question that will help you improve your practice and student performance.)

(Indicate a measurable result on a specific assessment. Multiple data sources are encouraged.)

(Indicate what you need to know and be able to do.)

(List activities that you have planned for your personal professional learning and indicate the documentation you will provide for each activity.)

(Record new strategies as you implement in your classroom and indicate the documentation you will gather for each strategy listed.)

IPDP Scoring Rubric Sample

Highly Effective Effective Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points

Student Baseline Data

Includes: disaggregation and then

triangulation of a minimum of 3 sources of data

identification of strengths and weaknesses of individual students and groups of students

Includes: disaggregation of data by

demographics identification of group

strengths and weaknesses

Includes: disaggregation of data insufficient analysis of student

data and student strengths and weaknesses

Includes: no disaggregation of

available data no analysis of strengths

and weaknesses

Student Growth-50%“At least 50% of evaluation must be based on

student learning growth assessed annually and measured by statewide assessments or, for subjects not measured by statewide assessments, by district assessments.” (Student Success Act)

50% with 3 years of data 40% with less than 3 years of data2011-2012 less than 3 years of data

40% Teacher-Level Student Growth10% School-Level Student Growth

FCAT-tested subjectsValue-added model

Implemented 2011-2012State Committee June 1st- Commissioner selects model Mid-July district receives information

Used to determine proficiency levels (HE, E, NI/D, U)

Teacher-level=40% School-level=10%

Additional value-added provided over the next 3 years

Value-Added ContinuedLevel the playing field by accounting for

differences in the proficiency and characteristics of students assigned to teachers

Must take into account prior performanceMay consider attendance, disability or ELL

statusCannot be based on gender, race, ethnicity or

socioeconomic statusIdentify teacher contribution to student learningMeasure student learning using student-level

test scores collected over a period of time

Non-FCAT personnel Use value-added models as they are delivered from the state

Use FCAT data for students assigned to teacher 7th grade geography

40% -students assigned to them 10% -school

Elementary PE, music, and art 50% -students assigned to them They see all students Only 4th and 5th grade have value-added information

Create district adopted growth measures Establish learning targets

Six committees Special Diploma Vocational Education/Industry Certification ESE-Pre K K-2, 3rd grade IB, AP, AICE, DE Learning Target Guidelines

Teacher Appraisal System Pie Chart

Type Teacher Type of Metric Calculation 1. Classroom teachers with students taking FCAT

Individual Student-Based Growth FCAT value-added for students assigned to teacher

40%

School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%

2. Classroom teachers with students enrolled in: IB, AICE, AP, DE Grades K-2 3rd grade ESE Pre-K Vocational Ed/Industry Certification Special Diploma Track

Individual Student-Based Growth District adopted growth measures

40%

School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%

3. Those classroom teachers not covered by 1 or 2 (i.e. 11th and 12th grade students without EOC or FCAT information)

Individual Learning Targets based on District Developed Guidelines

40%

School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 10% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%

4. Non-classroom teachers (School-Based)

Media Specialists Guidance

Counselors

School-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for school) 50% IPDP development 15% Administrator Observation 35%

5. Non-classroom teachers who serve multiple schools

School Psychologists

Resource Teachers Literacy Coaches Speech/vision

Teachers Social Workers Staff Training

Specialists

District-Based Growth (FCAT value-added data for district) 50%

IPDP development 15%

Administrator Observation

35%

Professional DevelopmentTeacher Appraisal System results inform

Professional DevelopmentObservation/Evaluation= Teacher NeedsStudent Growth = Student NeedsAdministrators and district staff offer relevant

and appropriate professional development Helps teachers know what professional

development they need to take to meet their needs and needs of students

Provides final evaluation based on many factors

How will this be managed?Fundamental change in the way teachers are

evaluatedCharlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching

TrainingAdministrators and district staff personnelDanielson Group

June 7th and 8th June 14th and 15th

Teacher Appraisal System training July 19th or July 26th

AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System) August

AIMS (Appraisal Information Management System)

Single-sign onProvides transparency in the

observation/evaluation processEase in managing, announcing, registration for

professional development Stores for easy retrieval

Past appraisal resultsIn-service and certification information

Instrumental in the management of the Teacher Appraisal System and professional development

AdjustmentsChanges over time will occurStudent growth and instructional practices

should mirror one anotherValue-added models from the stateDistrict assessments

Teacher-level becomes more specificSystem effectiveness

Fidelity, validity, and appropriateness

Additional TrainingTeachers receive training from PrincipalTraining materials provided

ProcessPaperworkDecision Points

Conclusionwww.bay.k12.fl.us