2013 EE D6 Presentation. - Greeley Schools · 2014-02-18 · 1/21/14 1 EducatorEﬀec,veness ListeningTourII Listening and Understanding • Welcome% • Build%asystem%to%supportyour%

1/21/14

1

Educator Effec,veness Listening Tour II

Listening and Understanding

• Welcome • Build a system to support your prac6ce •  Improving prac6ces over 6me • We want your feedback

1/21/14

2

What Is Educator Effectiveness? •  Requires educator effec6veness defini6ons for Colorado’s teachers with a focus on data/student outcomes in 2015

•  Provides defini6ons of exemplary leadership in a principal rubric with a focus on data/student outcomes in 2015

•  Includes Specialized Service Professionals (SSP) with a focus on du6es and responsibili6es

•  System of support for ineffec6ve teaching •  Gradual implementa6on and input to CDE

D6 Supports for Teachers •  Aligned curriculum to state standards •  Curriculum guides with learning outcomes •  PBIS •  Embedded coaching •  Instruc6onal leadership training for principals •  Ongoing professional development (summer catalog is cri6cal)

•  Instruc6onal resources •  Data-‐driven decisions (data teams, early warning systems, short-‐cycle repor6ng)

1/21/14

3

D6 Supports for Teachers •  Instruc6onal 6me increases •  Valid and reliable assessments •  Structures for interven6ons (RtI/MTSS) •  Systems-‐based communica6on •  Councils for input and communica6on •  Evalua6on Council (GEA and D6) •  External experts to support teaching and learning •  Focused efforts in literacy and numeracy •  Step increase

2.##Annual#

Evalua+on#Orienta+on#

3.#Self5

Assessment#

4.#Professional#Growth#Plan#

5.#Mid5Year#Review#

6.#Evaluator#Assessment#

7.#End5of5Year#Review#

8.#Final#Ra+ngs#

9.#Goal5SeHng#for#the#next#school#year#

1.#Training!

Educator Evaluation

Cycle

201352014#Evalua+on#Cycle#Dates### # # #(for#Con+nuing#Status#Educators)#

Date:!July!and!August!

Date:!Discussion!with!final!by!mid!September!

Date:!mid!September!

Date:!!October!15!

Date:!!October!15!

Date:!Dec/Jan!

Date:!February/March!Date:!March/April!

Date:!April/May/and!into!June!(as!needed)!

1/21/14

4

Teacher Quality Standards I: Teachers demonstrate

mastery of and pedagogical exper6se in the content they teach.

The elementary teacher is an expert in literacy and mathema6cs and is knowledgeable in all other content that he or she teaches. The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathema6cs and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area(s).

II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive, and respec\ul learning environment for a

diverse popula6on of students.

III: Teachers plan and deliver effec6ve

instruc6on and create an environment that facilitates learning for

their students.

IV: Teachers reflect on their prac6ce.

V:Teachers demonstrate leadership.

VI: Teachers take responsibility for student academic

growth.

Application of Quality Standards •  Each quality standard includes “elements” — which provide a more

detailed descrip6on of the knowledge and skills needed for each standard (3-‐to-‐8 elements within each standard).

•  All districts must base their evalua,ons on the full set of quality

standards and associated elements or on their own locally developed standards that meet or exceed the state’s quality standards and elements.

•  Some districts are using their own locally developed standards a`er comple6ng a crosswalk of their standards to the state’s quality standards and elements. These districts must provide assurances that they are mee,ng all addi,onal requirements of SB 10-‐191.

1/21/14

5

Teacher Evaluations

50% Professional Prac6ce

50% Student Academic Growth

Quality Standards I-‐V: I. Mastery of content II. Establish learning environment III. Facilitate learning IV. Reflect on prac6ce V. Demonstrate leadership

Evaluated using: (1) observa6ons; and (2) at least one of the following: student percep6on measures, peer feedback, parent/guardian feedback, or review of lesson plans/student work samples. May include addi6onal measures.

Quality Standard VI: VI. Responsibility for student academic growth

Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-‐adributed growth, (2) a measure of collec6vely-‐adributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summa6ve assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data.

State Model Rubric Basics •  Cumula6ve in content •  Each level of the rubric represents an increase in the quality, intensity, consistency, breadth, depth, and complexity of prac6ce

•  Effec6veness marked by the addi6on of prac6ces that improve the overall performance of the specialized service professional and drives to student/other stakeholder outcomes

•  Standards-‐based model •  Defines the prac6ce •  Describes the prac6ces to meet the standard

1/21/14

6

Scoring the Rubric

Determining the professional prac6ces ra6ng is a three-‐step process that involves ra6ng the individual elements and standards and using those to determine the overall ra6ng on professional prac6ces.

1.  Ra6ng the Elements 2.  Ra6ng the Standards 3.  Determining the Overall Professional Prac6ces

Ra6ng

System Components •  Con6nuous improvement process •  Standard •  Element •  Ra6ngs •  Professional prac6ces •  Ar6facts, evidence, and conversa6on

1/21/14

7

Understanding the Scoring “Business” Rule

Look for the first unchecked professional practice. Move one column back to identify the rating for the element.


Determining the Element Rating

1/21/14

8


Determining the Element Rating

System Components

Proficient offers a high standard

Collabora6on

Aspira6onal

1/21/14

9

Rubric Rating Levels Standard

Basic Par6ally Proficient Proficient Accomplished Exemplary

Element

Professional Prac6ces





0

Educator/SSP’s/Principal

performance on professional prac6ces is

significantly below the state

performance standard.

1

Educator/SSP’s/Principal

performance on professional prac6ces is

below the state performance standard.

3

Educator/SSP/Principal

exceeds state standard.

2

Educator/SSP/Principal

meets state performance standard.

4

Educator/SSP/Principal significantly exceeds state

standard.

Data Modeling Considerations •  Student Growth Emphasis •  Data Rules à à à •  Consistency by grade/level •  Shared with SPF •  Summa6ve Assessments •  TCAP transi6on to CMAS •  District Assessments (soon) •  Begins in 2014-‐2015 with 2013-‐2014 data

Evaluated using: (1) a measure of individually-‐aRributed growth, (2) a measure of collec,vely-‐aRributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summa,ve assessments; and (4) where applicable, Colorado Growth Model data.

1/21/14

10

Educator Effectiveness Ratings

•  540 points for professional prac6ces in basic, par6ally-‐proficient, proficient, accomplished, and exemplary (5 ra&ngs) •  540 points for student outcomes in much lower than expected growth, lower than expected growth, expected growth and higher than expected growth (4 ra&ngs) •  1080 possible in 2014-‐2015

How to combine professional practice and student outcomes

Student Outcomes

Profession

al Prac,ces

540

Exemplary (433 to 540 pts)

Accomplished (325 to 432 pts)

Proficient (217 to 324 pts)

Par,ally Proficient (109to 216pts)

Basic (0 to 108pts)

Much Lower Than Expected Growth (0 to 134 pts)

Lower Than Expected Growth (135 to 269 pts)

Expected Growth (270 to 404 pts)

Higher Than Expected Growth (405 to 540 pts)

0

0

540

1/21/14

11

K-3 Student Learning Outcomes Model

30.0%

10.0%

10.0%

50.0%

Dibels Classroom Dibels Grade Level SPF Total


50% Student Learning Outcomes Teacher Quality Standard 6

30.0%

10.0%

10.0%

50.0%

Dibels Classroom Dibels Grade Level SPF Total


50% Student Learning Outcomes Teacher Quality Standard 6

Elementary Teacher

4-5 Student Learning Outcomes Model

Elementary Teacher

1/21/14

12


Language Arts Teacher


Language Arts Teacher

1/21/14

13

Other Content Student Learning Outcomes Model

Non-TCAP Content Teacher

2012-‐13 CDE Pilot and Rollout

2013-‐14 Pilot and Rollout

(REQUIRED for all Districts)

2014-‐15 Full Statewide

Implementa6on with Scoring

Timeline of Implementation

First year that a final ra6ng of par6ally effec6ve or ineffec6ve will be considered in the loss of non-‐proba6onary status

Ra6ngs result in “hold-‐harmless” for scores of overall basic and par6ally-‐proficient

Learning the process for conduc6ng evalua6on in Colorado

1/21/14

14

Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System

1.   Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essen6al component of evalua6ons.

2.  The implementa6on and evalua6on of the system must embody con,nuous improvement.

3.  The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.

4.  The development and implementa6on of educator evalua6on systems must con6nue to involve all stakeholders in a collabora,ve process.

5.  Educator evalua6ons must take place within a larger system that is aligned and suppor6ve.

This System Offers •  Con6nuous and systema6c improvement with honest reflec6on on professional prac6ce

•  Uniform and rich descrip6ons of statewide leadership professional prac6ces

•  Concrete evidence and ar6facts of performance

•  High levels of accountability with a laser focus on exemplary instruc6onal prac6ces

1/21/14

15

Resources and Feedback •  CDE web site for educator effec6veness hdp://www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffec6veness/ •  Download the evalua6on documents for D6 hdp://www.greeleyschools.org/Page/4007

•  Provided Documents •  Feedback Form (think and write)