A Summary of Wisconsin’s Educator Effectiveness System

for West De Pere

Guiding Principles of the System

An educator evaluation system must deliver information that:– Guides effective educational practice that is

aligned with student learning and development– Documents evidence of effective educator

practice– Documents evidence of student learning– Informs appropriate professional development– Informs educator preparation programs– Supports a full range of human resource

decisions– Is credible, valid, reliable, comparable, and

uniform across districts

System BalanceSales

50% 50%EducatorPractice

StudentOutcomes

Multiple Measures

Standards for Educator Practice

Teacher PracticeInterstate Teacher Assessment and

Support Consortium (InTASC) Teaching Standards (2011)

Framework for Teacher Evaluation

Charlotte Danielson’s Domains & Components

Domain 1: Planning and PreparationDomain 2: The Classroom

EnvironmentDomain 3: InstructionDomain 4: Professional

Responsibilities

Principal Practice2008 Interstate School

Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

Framework for Principal EvaluationRubrics adapted and

aligned with ISLLC standards

Domain 3Instruction

Domain 2Classroom Environment

Domain 3Instruction

3a Communicating with Students3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques3c Engaging Students in Learning3d Using Assessment in Instruction3e Demonstrating Flexibility & Responsiveness

Domain 3Instruction

3a Communicating with Students3b Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques3c Engaging Students in Learning3d Using Assessment in Instruction3e Demonstrating Flexibility & Responsiveness

Domain 2Classroom Environment

2a Creating an Environment of Respect & Rapport2b Creating a Culture of Learning2c Managing Classroom Procedures2d Managing Student Behavior2e Managing Physical Space

Domain 2Classroom Environment

2a Creating an Environment of Respect & Rapport2b Creating a Culture of Learning2c Managing Classroom Procedures2d Managing Student Behavior2e Managing Physical Space

Domain 4Professional Responsibilities

Domain 1Planning and Preparation

Domain 4Professional Responsibilities

4a Reflecting on Teaching4b Maintaining Accurate Records4c Communicating with Families4d Participating in a Professional Community4e Growing and Developing Professionally4f Showing Professionalism

Domain 1Planning and Preparation

1a Demonstrating Knowledge of Content & Pedagogy1b Demonstrating Knowledge of Students1c Setting Instructional Outcomes1d Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources1e Designing Coherent Instruction1f Designing Student Assessment

The Danielson Framework for Teaching

• Rigorous research background– Content validity– Criterion validity

• Widespread state and national use• State-of-the-art training• Aligned with InTASC Standards

Why Danielson Framework?

Teacher Practice Evaluation Process

OCT.

Nov.

Nov.-MarchFeb – End of School Year

April -June

Teacher Responsibilities Evaluator Responsibilities

Self Rating Schedule and facilitate EEP – evaluation planning session

Meet with evaluator to discuss goals

Complete at minimum 1 announce observation of 45 min or 2-20 min observations

For formal observations – pre/post observation meetings

Complete 1 unannounced observation for 45 min or 2-20 min.

Provide evaluator with other evidence

Complete 3-5 informal and unannounced observations for at least 5 min.

Prepare for Final Evaluation conference

Monitor and review evidence

Meet for final evaluation conference and sign off on Professional Practice Rating

Prepare, schedule and facilitate Final Evaluation Conference/Assign rating level

Levels of Performance – Teacher Practice

 Levels of Performance - Teacher Practice      Highly Effective

(Level 4)

    Effective(Level 3)

Refers to professional teaching that innovatively involves students in the

learning process and creates a true community

of learners. Teachers performing at this level are

master teachers and leaders in the field, both

inside and outside of their school.

  Minimally Effective(Level 2)

Refers to successful, professional practice. The

teacher consistently teaches at a proficient

level.  It would be expected that most experienced

teachers would frequently perform at this level.

Ineffective(Level 1)

Refers to teaching that has the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective,

but its application is inconsistent  (perhaps due

to recently entering the profession or recently transitioning to a new

curriculum, grade level or subject).

Refers to teaching that does not convey

understanding of concepts underlying the component. This level of performance is

doing harm in the classroom.

 

Evaluation Schedule

• New educators (first 3 years in a district)=evaluated annually

• Struggling educators (those whose summative performance rating is at the lowest level) = evaluated annually

• Veteran, non struggling educators= evaluated every three years. Although these educators could be evaluated on a subset of performance dimensions each year, with the entire set covered over a three year period.

• Student and School Learning Objectives will be required of all educators every year.

System BalanceSales

50% 50%EducatorPractice

StudentOutcomes

Multiple Measures

Student Outcome Detail (50% of evaluation)

Student Learning Objectives

Models of Practice

District Choice

SLO Defined

• Student/School Learning Objectives which are academic growth goals for entire classrooms or subsets of students that are established by individual teachers or teacher teams based on a review of data, approved by a supervisor (typically the principal), with evidence of increased student outcomes collected throughout the year and evaluated at the end of the year.

• Classroom Teacher = Student Learning Objectives

• Principal/School Administrator = School Learning Objectives

Number of SLO’s

• The number of SLOs an educator is required to set each year is dependent upon the amount and type of other student outcome data available.

• Three main sources of student outcome evidence: state assessment data, district assessment data, and SLOs, will be weighted equally (15% each) in situations where all three are available.

Number of SLOs - Examples

• In situations where all three of these sources of student outcome evidence are available, educators will have to develop 1 SLO.– Example: 4th grade teacher in a district which has

standardized district assessment data.All 3 sources of student outcome evidence = 1 SLO

• Where only two of the three sources of student outcome evidence are available, educators will have to develop 2 separate SLOs (with a combined weighting of 22.5% of the overall evaluation score).– Example: 7th grade teacher in a district with no standardized

district assessment data.2 sources of student outcome evidence = 2 SLOs

• Where neither state nor district assessment data are available, educators will have to develop 3 separate SLOs (weighted at 15% each, for a total of 45% of the overall score).– Example: an elementary art teacher

3 sources of student outcome evidence = 3 SLOs

Student Learning Objectives Process

Prepare SLO •Educator reviews student data and considers CCSS, 21st Century Skills, district initiatives, building/district goals, school improvement plans, and/or other content standards to identify a target students population and determine potential SLOs. SLO9s) developed using Selection/Approval rubric

Submit SLO for Approval •Based upon the availability of other student outcome data, the educator will set 1-3 SLOs and will determine the most appropriate assessment measure that will be utilized to determine if the target is met or not.

Collect Evidence •The educator collects and monitors student progress to ensure that the target population(s) are making progress toward the objective(s). A mid-year meeting with the supervisor is scheduled, and adjustments to the SLP growth target may be made upon mutual agreement in situations where the goals are either too rigorous or not rigorous enough.

Review & Score. •The educator submits the final results of the SLO(s) prior to May 15, and the educator and supervisor will collaboratively determine a score for each SLO based upon the 1-4 scoring rubric.

Not approved

Approved

Technology to Manage System

• State procurement of Teachscape approved, contract being finalized

• Teachscape will provide:– Online access to 2011 and 2013 Danielson

Framework for Teaching– Online training for evaluators and teachers

Educator Effectiveness Timeline

Stage 1Developing

Stage 2Piloting

Stage 3Implementing

Phases 1 & 2December 2010-

June 2012Framework released

Model developmentDevelopmental Districts

Phase 3DEVELOPME

NTALSept 2012- June

2013Voluntary

PilotsDevelopmen

t workEvaluator

and Educator training System training

Phase 4FULL

Sept. 2013- June 2014Pilot

EvaluationModel

revisionsContinued

system training

Phase 5July 2014-June

2015Educator

Effectiveness system fully implemented

statewide: Teachers and

Principals

Continuous Improvement

Resources

EE Website:http://ee.dpi.wi.gov/

EE Searchable FAQs:https://helpdesk.dpi.wi.gov/footprints/eehelp.html