Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Teacher Evaluation Handbook
April, 2016
2
Table of Contents
DEFINITION OF TERMS ........................................................................................................................ 3 TEACHER EVALUATION PROCESS .................................................................................................... 7 I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 II. THE EVALUATION PROCESSES AND TIMELINES ............................................................................................. 8
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 14 ARCHITECTURE FOR ART AND SCIENCE OF TEACHING FRAMEWORK ............................. 15 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FOR DOMAINS ..................................................................................... 18 DOMAIN 2: PLANNING AND PREPARING ........................................................................................................... 18
STUDENT GROWTH OVERVIEW: SLO DESIGN ........................................................................... 19 CRITERIA TO GUIDE THE SELECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR STUDENT GROWTH ..................................... 19
ANNUAL GOAL SETTING ................................................................................................................... 20 OBSERVATIONAL PROTOCOL SNAPSHOT TO GUIDE FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION ..... 22 EVALUATOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................ 23 PEER REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................... 24 IMPLICATIONS BASED ON PERFORMANCE………………………………………………………………..26
FORMS AND PROTOCOLS ................................................................................................................. 27 TEACHER EVALUATION FORM ............................................................................................................................. 28 TEACHER EVALUATION SUMMATIVE RATING WORKSHEET .......................................................................... 31 ANNUAL GOAL SETTING FORM ............................................................................................................................ 32 PEER-‐TO-‐PEER OBSERVATION ............................................................................................................................ 34 INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS: TWENTY RULES OF THUMB ................................................................................. 36 INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS: ENGAGEMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS .................................................................. 39 INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS: LESSON SEGMENTS ADDRESSING CONTENT .................................................... 40 INSTRUCTIONAL ROUNDS: CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 41 EVIDENCE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY LOG ....................................................................... 42 INTENSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FORM ..................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX A: CALCULATING TOTAL SCORE STARTING IN 2019-‐20 ................................. 44 APPENDIX B: STUDENT GROWTH RATING WORKSHEET ...................................................... 45 APPENDIX C: PERFORMANCE GAP REDUCTION STUDENT GROWTH MEASURE EXPLANATION ...................................................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX D: CONVERSIONS OF RATINGS TO POINTS AND VICE VERSA .......................... 51
3
Definition Of Terms
Educational specialists: Educators identified as educational specialists in State Board of Education Rule Chapter 115, section 2.20, including school counselor, athletic director, school counselor, library-‐media specialist, literacy specialist, school psychologist, speech-‐language clinician.
Highly Effective: The top level of performance that describes an educator’s practice that consistently reaches above and beyond the expectations. Highly effective practice reflects a continual striving for improvement both within the classroom and beyond.
Effective: The expected level of performance for a professional. This level represents consistent practice signifying a solid understanding of content and pedagogy and how to make learning experiences relevant and engaging for students.
Partially Effective: A level of performance that reflects inconsistent knowledge and application of content, instructional strategies and behaviors. The practice of an educator who is new to the profession may for a time be partially effective while he/she is learning the craft, but this level of performance is problematic and may result in an Intensive Administrative Review for an experienced teacher.
Ineffective: A level of performance that describes practices that have an adverse effect on student learning and/or the professional learning community of the school and district.
Evaluation: a comprehensive written summative report, using the form entitled “FIVE TOWN CSD / MSAD #28 Evaluation of Teacher Performance,” based upon the supervisor’s observations of the teaching process as described by Domain One (Classroom Strategies and Behaviors) in the Art and Science of Teaching Framework developed by Robert Marzano and upon additional evidence regarding a teacher’s overall performance in Domain Two (Planning and Preparing), Domain Three (Reflecting on Teaching, and Domain Four (Collegiality and Professionalism) . It includes the evaluator’s rating on each of the Domains of the framework and a summative overall rating. The written summative evaluation is given to the teacher prior to a conference between the supervisor and the teacher to review. The teacher may submit information he / she wishes attached to the evaluation if disagreement exists. A copy of the evaluation shall be given to the teacher and placed in his/her personnel file in the Office of the Superintendent.
Evaluator: An Maine state certified administrator.
Evidence: A representative sample to support the teacher’s goals which may include artifacts, written reflections, list of activities and other items.
4
First – Year Teacher: a teacher in his/her first year of teaching in the district
Second – Year Teacher: a teacher in his/her second year of teaching in the district; he/she has not yet reached continuing contract status.
Third – Year Teacher: a teacher in his/her third year of teaching in the district; he/she has not yet reached continuing contract status.
Five Town CSD/MSAD #28 Teacher Performance Standards: the behaviors and outcomes expected of teachers in performance of their duties in the classroom and in school as identified in the Art and Science of Teaching Framework. These are the standards by which all teachers are supervised and evaluated.
Formal Observation: a traditional classroom visit of the teacher for purposes of evaluation of professional practice during instructional time, which is preceded by a pre-‐conference and is followed by a post – conference between the teacher and the supervisor. This type of visit lasts between 30 – 60 minutes.
Informal Observation: a classroom visit done by a supervisor in order to form impressions of the teacher’s work and of student learning. It is often unscheduled and lasts between 10 – 30 minutes. The observation information may be used for future summative evaluations as well as to identify areas in need of support. Feedback is given to the teacher following each informal observation.
Instructional cohort: The group of students whose academic growth is attributed to a teacher or principal because the student is enrolled in the course or other learning experience taught by that teacher, was present for instruction at least 80% of the scheduled instructional time, and took both the pre and post assessment designed to measure achievement. A cohort of students is between 12-‐20 students, unless a teachers only has classes with fewer than 12 students. In that case, the teacher will choose the cohort that best meets these guidelines.
Instructional round: A practice embedded in a collaborative, inquiry based culture in which several educators observe a classroom for the primary purpose of critical discussion and reflection of their own practices.
Intensive Administrative Review: A process that may last from six months to two years for teachers whose evaluation ratings are less than “effective” in any domain. The intensive administrative review involves a minimum of six formal or informal observations, and may include more formal or informal observations at the discretion of administration. At least two of the observations, whether formal or informal, will include a pre-‐conference, and all observations will include a post-‐conference.
Post-‐Conference: a conference that follows a formal observation or a meeting that is called by either party for the purpose of discussing an observation.
5
Pre–conference: a conference that precedes a formal observation and for continuing contract staff includes a review of the individual's written self reflection as well as discussion of focus questions generated by the evaluator. The teacher will present a lesson plan for the observation at this time.
Peer Coach: A master teacher with a wide knowledge of curriculum and instruction, proven ability to increase student achievement, and the interpersonal skills to professionally and respectfully provide feedback to other educators, either virtually or in-‐person.
Peer Feedback: A give and take of information, suggestions, questions and ideas between an educator and a peer coach for the purpose of providing support.
Peer Review: For purposes of this evaluation system, peer review is defined as either 1) a peer-‐to-‐peer observation using the standard form or iObservation, 2) instructional round using the Instructional Round Form. Peer review is for formative purposes only and is used primarily for continuing contract teachers.
Probationary Teacher: A teacher new to our District in his/her first three years.
Reflection: Self – reflection using Marzano’s self-‐reflection format with ratings and evidence for each domain that informs goal setting in the fall.
Teacher of record: The teacher to whom the academic growth of a student in a course or other learning experience is attributed, in whole or in part.
Teacher: A person who provides classroom instruction to students in a general education or special education program. It does not include educational specialists.
Unscheduled Observation: an informal observation by the supervisor without prior notice.
Student learning and growth: Achievement in knowledge and/or skill that is attributed to instruction as measured by the difference between scores attained by an instructional cohort on comparable pre-‐ and a post-‐ assessments.
Summative Conference: A conference that addresses the entire written summative evaluation. The teacher will be provided a written copy of the evaluation so he/she may review it prior to the conference.
Supervision: A robust and intentional process that provides a foundation for feedback that leads to continued professional growth.
Supervisor: the Principal, Assistant Principal, Director of Special Education, Assistant Superintendent or Superintendent who has immediate charge of a teacher.
6
Summative Rating: This is the overall teacher effectiveness rating. The overall score is calculated by 80% of the average of the four domains of professional practice and 20% of the measures of student growth. The overall score is then converted to a rating of effectiveness.
Walkthrough: A classroom visit to gather information about school wide instructional practices or simply used for an administrator to maintain visibility in classrooms. These visits are not used for evaluative purposes and last fewer than 10 minutes. Quick feedback to the teacher is recommended when possible.
7
Teacher Evaluation Process
I. Introduction At the heart of every quality public school is a culture that supports schools as “learning communities” where teachers, students, and administrators are involved in continuous development of their knowledge and skills in light of District standards. This culture transcends the classroom and permeates all aspects of student and staff interactions. Teaching is a difficult, complex, challenging profession that requires specific skill and expertise that takes years, if not an entire career to acquire.
A quality teacher evaluation system is set in the context of a well-‐articulated, shared, and evolving knowledge base for teaching practice that provides a common professional language that allows for reflective supervision that is not prescriptive but a source of focused feedback and practice among teachers and supervisors. An effective system includes a robust and intentional supervision process that provides a foundation for the feedback that leads to continual professional growth. The model of supervision will support what eventually becomes an individual teacher’s summative evaluation. A quality teacher evaluation system also recognizes the different stages of teacher development progressing toward expertise and allow for customized professional development plans.
A quality teacher evaluation and supervision system insures that teachers receive regular and consistent feedback regarding their progress in meeting these standards as well as support in actualizing their potential as professionals. This evaluation tool provides supervisors the chance to comment both upon teachers’ work inside the classroom as well as their role in the larger school community.
The teacher evaluation system is designed to be flexible and is committed to on-‐going improvement of teaching. The system is based on clear teacher performance standards as defined by Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching Framework (see attached FIVE TOWN CSD / MSAD #28 Teacher Performance Standards) and recognizes that teachers require varying types and degrees of supervision at different points in their careers.
The purposes of instructional supervision and general teacher performance evaluation in FIVE TOWN CSD / MSAD #28 are as follows:
1) to improve instructional practices which promote greater student learning 2) to provide opportunities for teachers to receive positive reinforcement, feedback, affirmation and support toward their professional growth 3) to maintain a comprehensive system of teacher accountability to the school district and the community 4) to support each District’s mission statement
8
II. The Evaluation Processes and Timelines This process is outlined for the various years and categories of teachers in our district, with a narrative description and timeline for each.
Note: What follows shall not prohibit a supervisor from having the right to observe any teacher at any time, with or without a pre-‐observation conference. Also, what follows shall not prohibit a teacher from asking for an observation and/ or evaluation at any time.
First-‐Year Probationary Teachers Each First-‐ Year Teacher will be observed and evaluated according to the FIVE TOWN CSD/MSAD #28 Teacher Performance Standards. The teacher will complete a self-‐reflection and participate in co-‐directed goal setting with the administrator by November 1*. The written summative evaluation will include information gathered during a minimum of one formal observation with pre and post-‐conference and a minimum of three informal classroom observations with feedback as well as additional information regarding the teacher’s performance in areas outside the classroom observation including possible peer feedback. The first observation by the supervisor will be informal and will be followed by a meeting to review the visit; this will occur before November 1. This will be followed by a minimum of one formal observation by the supervisor, with a pre-‐ and post-‐ conference; the formal observation must be completed by December 15. The supervisor may also do unscheduled observations of the teacher at any time. The Five Town CSD/MSAD #28 Evaluation of Teacher Performance forms, completed by April 15 and signed by the supervisor and signed by the teacher, will be filed in the teacher's personnel file in the Superintendent's office. *If the probationary teacher has 0 – 1 year experience, that teacher will not do a self-‐reflection/goal setting, but will instead participate in the district’s New Teacher Induction Program. First-‐Year Probationary Teacher TIMELINE
Deadline Activity Oct 15 Informal Observation and meeting with
supervisor to review Nov 1 Self-‐reflection (may be Domain 1 only for
teachers new to profession) and goal setting*
*Teachers with 0 – 1 years experience Will not participate in above activity, but will participate in the district’s New Teacher Induction Program instead.
Dec 15 Minimum one formal observation with pre and post-‐conference
9
Second-‐ and Third -‐Year Probationary Teachers Each Second-‐ Year Teacher will also be observed and evaluated according to the Five Town CSD/MSAD #28 Teacher Evaluation System. The teacher will complete a self-‐reflection and participate in co-‐directed goal setting with the administrator by October 15. The written summative evaluation will include information gathered during a minimum of one formal observation with pre and post-‐conferences and a minimum of three unscheduled informal classroom observations and feedback as well as additional information regarding the teacher’s performance in areas outside the classroom observation including possible peer feedback. A formal observation must be completed by December 15. The supervisor may also do unscheduled observations of the teacher at any time. The Five Town CSD/MSAD #28 Evaluation of Teacher Performance forms, completed by April 15 and signed by the supervisor and signed by the teacher, will be filed in the teacher's personnel file in the Superintendent's office. *If the probationary teacher has only 1 year of experience, that teacher will not do a self-‐reflection/goal setting, but will instead participate in the district’s New Teacher Induction Program. Second and Third Year Probationary Teacher TIMELINE Deadline Activity Nov 1 Self-‐reflection (may be Domain 1 only for
teachers new to profession) and goal setting
*Teachers with only 1 year of experience *Will not participate in above activity, but will participate in the district’s New Teacher Induction Program instead.
Dec 15 Minimum one formal observation with pre and post-‐conference
Sept – April Unscheduled informal observations and feedback
Sept -‐ April Possible peer observations and feedback (dept head at CHRHS)
Sept – April Unscheduled informal observations and feedback
Sept – April Possible peer observations and feedback (dept head at CHRHS)
April 15 Comprehensive written summative evaluation. Evaluation forms include formal and informal observations as well as other information
10
April 15 Comprehensive written summative evaluation. Evaluation forms include formal and informal observations as well as other information
Continuing Contract Teachers: The Three -‐Year Cycle Each teacher on continuing contract who has not been placed on Intensive Administrative Review will be placed in the Three-‐ Year Cycle. The continuing contract teacher will take an active role in the evaluative process by reflecting upon his/her own teaching practices, completing a self-‐reflection and developing goals from one of four sources: district/school initiative, self-‐reflection, personal interest, or guidance by administrator, and developing a plan by December 1st of each year of professional activities to meet the goals.
During the first two years of the three-‐year cycle the teacher will participate in professional learning activities such as peer feedback, observing another teacher, participating in instructional rounds, video and analysis, and self-‐reflection designed to further their own professional development, assist with goal achievement, and to develop the professional learning culture of the District. The teacher will annually collect evidence around the goals to support a summative rating in the summative evaluation year. Teachers on a continuing contract will have a minimum of three informal observations with feedback every year and may have a formal observation with pre and post-‐conference if requested by the administrator or teacher. During the three year evaluation cycle, more than one administrator will be involved in conducting an individual teacher’s informal observations.
During the third year of the cycle, the teacher will complete a self-‐reflection using the evaluation tool (on google docs) by October 15, making sure to include reflection of the previous two years’ goals. By December 1, the teacher and an evaluating administrator shall meet to develop an informal, preliminary draft of an evaluation of the teacher’s performance using the evaluation instrument. During this meeting, the two parties shall look for areas of agreement about the teacher’s performance. For areas where the parties agree on the same rating, no evidence shall be necessary to document the teacher’s performance. For areas where a discrepancy exists between the teacher’s and the evaluator’s rating of the teacher’s performance, the two parties will discuss the reasons for their ratings, and develop a plan for each party to collect evidence relating to the area of discrepancy.
Then, by April 15, the teacher and the evaluator shall meet at least one more time to discuss evidence produced by either party related to the area(s) of discrepancy. The evaluator shall consider the totality of evidence produced pursuant to this process to determine the final, summative ratings of the teacher’s performance. During the course of the year, the teacher will participate in professional learning activities such as peer
11
feedback, observing another teacher, participating in instructional rounds, video and self-‐analysis, and self-‐reflection. Teachers will have a minimum of three informal observations with feedback and may have a formal observation with pre and post-‐conference if requested by the administrator or teacher.
The Five Town CSD/MSAD #28 Evaluation of Teacher Performance forms, completed by April 15 and signed by the supervisor and signed by the teacher, will be filed in the teacher's personnel file in the Superintendent's office.
In the event that the teacher disagrees with the evaluation and/or wishes to add additional information to it, he/she may do so within thirty (30) days of the post-‐conference. Submissions will be attached to the evaluation document and filed with it in the teacher's personnel file in the Superintendent's office.
Y1 and Y2 Continuing Contract TIMELINE
Y3 Continuing Contract TIMELINE Deadline Activity October 15 Self-‐reflection using the evaluation tool,
making sure to include reflection on previous two years’ goals.
Deadline Activity October 15 – December 1 Self-‐reflection and goal setting. Develop
goals in one of four areas: district/school initiative, self-‐reflection, personal interest, guidance by administrator. Includes plan to meet the goals
Ongoing Collect evidence around the goals May 15 Minimum of 3 informal observations with
feedback. May 15 Peer feedback structure or a set of options:
observe another teacher, instructional rounds, department head/team leader, visit/observation with feedback to admin
May 15 May include a formal observation including a pre and post conference if requested by admin or teacher
12
December 1 Meet with administrator to develop an informal, preliminary draft of an evaluation of the teacher’s performance using the evaluation instrument.
April 15 Minimum of 3 informal observations with feedback.
April 15 Peer feedback structure or a set of options: observe another teacher, instructional rounds, department head/team leader, visit/observation with feedback to admin
April 15 May include a formal observation including a pre and post conference if requested by admin or teacher
April 15 Evaluation form includes informal or formal observation information conducted by two administrators and other information
May 15 Teacher may add additional information within 30 days of post-‐conference
Continuing Contract Teachers: Intensive Administrative Review If a teacher has been observed and has received from his/her supervisor an overall rating of “Beginning/Not Using” on any of the four Domains, or if the teacher has been otherwise identified as not meeting professional standards by the supervisor, he/she will be placed on Intensive Administrative Review for at least six months, not including July and August, and not longer than eighteen months. If the teacher receives an overall rating of “Developing” on any of the four domains, he/she may be placed on Intensive Administrative Review at the discretion of the supervisor. The above process does not preclude the supervisor from placing the teacher on Intensive Administrative Review at his/her discretion. Should the teacher be placed on administrative review, the timeline will start on the date of receipt of notification. The teacher will complete a self-‐reflection prior to the development of an action plan. Within two weeks of notification of the teacher, the administrator will draft an action plan collaboratively with the teacher (optionally with a representative) that addresses the domains of concern and includes identification of the concerns, actions and a timeline for improvement, and sources of evidence. During Intensive Administrative Review, the teacher will be formally and informally observed with or without notice and evaluated a minimum of six times by the end of the Intensive Administrative Review focusing on the domains of concern that are identified in the action plan. The process will involve a minimum of two administrators over the course
13
of the plan. If concerns about additional domains arise during the administrative review, these will be addressed by a separate but concurrent action plan and review process. Evaluations and observations may be addressed through concurrent Intensive Administrative Review. At least two of the observations will include a pre-‐conference while other observations may not include a pre-‐conference, but they will all include post-‐conferences. The Five Town CSD/ MSAD # 28 Evaluation of Teacher Performance form, completed by the end of the plan and signed by the supervisor and signed by the teacher will be filed in the teacher’s personnel file in the Superintendent’s office. By the end of the plan, if the teacher on Intensive Administrative Review receives ratings of “Applying” or “Innovating” in the domain(s) of concern by the end of the Intensive Administrative Review, the following year he/she will be placed in year two of the three year cycle. If the teacher fails to receive ratings “Applying” or “Innovating” in the domain(s) of concern by the end of the Intensive Administrative Review, the Superintendent may recommend the teacher to the Five Town CSD or MSAD # 28 Board of Directors for non-‐renewal or dismissal while recognizing the appropriate provisions of the article entitled “Teacher Discipline and Fair Dismissal” found in the Teachers’ Agreements with the Megunticook Teachers’ Association. None of the above procedures precludes the Superintendent recommending non-‐renewal or dismissal at any time if the need should arise.
Intensive Administrative Review TIMELINE
Deadline Activity Within 6 – 18 months Within two weeks of notification
administrator drafts action plan with teacher
Teacher completes self-‐reflection using evaluation tool on domains of concern.
Formal and informal observations with or without notice and evaluated a minimum of six times on the domains of concern identified in the action plan
Process involves at least 2 administrators At least two observations include a pre-‐
conference and all include a post-‐conference
Comprehensive summative evaluation forms completed by end of plan
14
Professional Practices Overview Robert Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching provides the framework for the Five Town CSD/ MSAD # 28 supervision and evaluation process. It is used by teachers for self-‐reflection and/or peer feedback and by administrators for feedback, supervision, and evaluation. The descriptors under each element in the evaluation tool should be considered examples of the element. Descriptors are not all-‐inclusive nor should teachers seek to use all of them in a given lesson, unit, or professional activity. While the scales that accompany each element of the four domains are useful in providing specific feedback for supervision, and informing a design question rating, it is not expected that every element nor every design question will be rated in a summative evaluation. In any given evaluation cycle, a specific set of elements will be identified as an area of focus for collecting and summarizing evidence and making a determination of effectiveness of practice within a domain. In the 2015-‐16 pilot year, we chose to focus on Design Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8.
We understand that it is impossible to truly witness every instructional practice in Marzano’s Framework over the course of an evaluation cycle. Likewise, it is impractical for an evaluator to attend to and/or observe every element that might be happening in a classroom during a given observation. Therefore, our professional practice model will be focused on the following 5 Design Questions. Evaluators should specifically focus on evidence for these design questions during their observations.
Any element within the design question can serve as evidence for that measure. If an evaluator sees evidence of other design questions, it is appropriate to also include those observations in the evaluation. Likewise, if the evaluator sees a lack of evidence in other elements or design questions that should be evident based on that particular lesson, it is appropriate to also include those observations in the evaluation. In other words, all evaluations will attend minimally to these 5 design questions; additional evidence relating to any other design question may also be considered in the overall evaluation, supplied by either the teacher or administrator. The number of elements (quantity) observed within Domain 1 does not necessarily directly correlate to professional practice quality.
The evaluator will consider the score in each of the five design questions to determine the overall score for Domain 1.
DQ1: Communicating Learning Goals & Feedback DQ3: Helping Students Practice & Deepen New Knowledge DQ5: Engaging Students DQ6: Establishing Rules & Procedures DQ8: Establishing & Maintaining Effective Relationships with Students
15
Architecture for Art and Science of Teaching Framework
Structure Description Function in Supervision and Evaluation System
Domain The four domains are the broadest categories of the model
Each domain receives a rating in a summative evaluation, based upon the preponderance of evidence compared to scales
Lesson Segment Domain 1 has three lesson segments, which are “super categories”
Used to ensure a breadth of feedback over time but not individually rated or scored.
Design Question Domain 1 has 9 design questions and Domain 2 has a 10th design question
Used to facilitate feedback and discussion, and the identified 5 Questions are individually scored. Each of these design questions is rated in a self-‐reflection, and scales can be used to help that process. This reflection facilitates a discussion about evidence over time that will be reflected in a summative evaluation.
Element Domain 1 has 41 elements grouped into the 9 design questions, Domain 2 has 8 elements grouped into 5 subcategories, Domain 3 has 5 elements grouped into 2 subcategories, and Domain 4 has 6 elements grouped into 3 subcategories
Elements provide the specificity required for meaningful feedback and reflection.
16
Marzano
Lea
rning Map
s Marzano
Lea
rning Map
s
17
18
Summary of Evidence for Domains Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors
Domain 2: Planning and Preparing
Domain 3: Reflecting on Teaching
Domain 4: Collegiality and Professionalism
Components of Domain 1: • Lesson Segments involving Routine
Events • Lesson Segments Addressing Content • Lesson Segments Enacted on the Spot
Potential sources of Evidence: • Classroom Observations • Artifacts collected for goals • Self reflection
Components of Domain 2: • Planning and preparing for lessons
and units • Planning and preparing for use of
materials and technology • Planning and preparing for special
needs students, ELL students, and students who lack support for schooling
Potential sources of Evidence: • Lesson plans and/or unit plans with
brief commentary by teacher • Dialogue with teacher • Preconference or planning
conference • Classroom observation • Differentiation
Components of Domain 3: • Evaluating personal performance • Developing and implementing a
professional growth plan
Potential sources of Evidence: • Self-‐audit using scales • Brief commentary by teacher • Post-‐conference or reflection
conference • Student work samples • Data collected from student work • Growth plan • Periodic progress reports
Components of Domain 4: • Promoting a positive environment • Promoting exchange of ideas and
strategies • Promoting school and district
development
Potential sources of evidence: • Brief commentary by teacher • Observed behaviors that affect
professionalism • Participation in school activities log • Participation in professional
development
19
Student Growth Overview: SLO Design
Criteria to Guide the Selection of Assessments for Student Growth
All teachers will use an SLO to measure student growth. The SLO for each teacher will be a pre-‐and post assessment based on either one quarter, trimester, or semester of learning. The measure of student growth will be applied to a cohort (12-‐24 students) that reflects the most heterogeneously grouped class taught by the teacher of record. A pre-‐assessment will be administered within the first two weeks of the course and the same assessment will be administered as a post assessment during the last two weeks of the chosen time frame. Growth will be measured based on the Performance Gap Reduction method. The assessment must:
• Be able to measure growth from pre-‐test to post-‐test in identified and intended learning outcomes
• Provide all students in the instructional cohort the opportunity to demonstrate growth in knowledge or skill using a measurable point system created by the teacher based on the assessment type chosen
20
Annual Goal Setting Five Town CSD and MSAD 28
1. Overview Teachers will conduct a self-‐reflection using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Framework every fall. Based on this reflection, teachers will create 1 – 3 goals for the year. Possible activities to meet these goals include the ones outlined below; others may be approved by the building administrator. The only exception to the goal setting process will be teachers on Intensive Administrative Review and teachers with 0 – 1 years of experience. Teachers will fill out the attached form and return it to their administrator or supervisor by November 15. Teachers wishing to use this experience for re-‐certification, must make sure to get the required PRIOR APPROVAL. Teachers will maintain the evidence for review during the formal evaluation year and include it as part of their written self-‐reflection. Teachers must choose some activities over the 3 year cycle that involve peer to peer review and learning. II. Professional Learning Activities Options Activities Evidence PEER TO PEER
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION •peer observation •instructional round •self video
See protocols for guidance Logs of observation dates and reflection of learning.
PROFESSIONAL READING
Read book, articles, with peers.
Record titles of readings, articles. Write brief reflection on your learning and its impact on your instruction.
GROUP LESSON STUDY Study a particular lesson and plan it together with other teacher(s). Observe one person teach a lesson. Review it as per accepted protocols for Lesson Study.
Logs of observation dates and reflection of learning. Copy of lesson plan.
FOCUS GROUP AROUND SPECIFIC TOPIC
Research and read material. Meet with group at least three times (one hr. mtgs.)
Write an individual reflection on your learning after the group discussions
21
INDIVIDUAL
SELF-‐DESIGNED PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Identify and participate in activities to support growth toward goals. The teacher will submit evidence of growth at the end of the year, or keep it in a file to present during the formal evaluation in year 3
Documentation of activities which may include transcripts, certificates, journal entries, etc.
PROFESSIONAL READING
Read book, articles, on your own.
Record titles of readings, articles. Write brief reflection on your learning and its impact on your instruction.
CLASSES, CONFERENCES, AND WORKSHOPS, WEBINARS, TRAINING MODULES, ONLINE DISCUSSION FORUM
Attend relevant structured learning opportunities to meet goals.
Certificate of participation and some evidence of impact on instruction.
COMMITTEE Participate on a committee directly related to a Marzano domain.
Certification of participation and some evidence of domain impact.
22
Observational Protocol Snapshot To Guide Feedback and Discussion
Educator: Date and Time of Observation: Class Observed: Observer:
Domain 1: Classroom Strategies and Behaviors Lesson Segments That Involve Routine Events That Might Be Observed in Every Lesson
• What is the teacher doing to help establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress, and celebrate success?
• What is the teacher doing to establish or maintain classroom rules and procedures?
Lesson Segments That Address Content
• What is the teacher doing to help students effectively interact with new knowledge?
• What is the teacher doing to help student practice and deepen their understanding of new knowledge?
• What is the teacher doing to help students generate and test hypotheses about new knowledge?
Lesson Segments That Are Enacted on the Spot
• What is the teacher doing to engage students? • What is the teacher doing to recognize and acknowledge adherence and lack of
adherence to classroom rules and procedures? • What is the teacher doing to establish and maintain effective relationships with
students? • What is the teacher doing to communicate high expectations for all students?
Domain 2: Planning and Preparing
• What is the teacher doing to plan and prepare for lessons and units? • What is the teacher doing to plan and prepare for use of materials and
technology? • What is the teacher doing to plan and prepare for special needs, ELL and
students who lack support for schooling?
23
Evaluator Training and Qualifications
Evaluators will be qualified through the completion of training appropriate to their role. Training includes training and/or certification that was completed prior to the implementation of the Educator Supervision and Evaluation Plan. Initial training for Evaluators (certified administrators):
• Book read of The Art and Science of Teaching; • Marzano training on Teacher Evaluation Model, including Interrater Reliability; • iObservation Training
Ongoing training for Evaluators (certified administrators):
• Inter-‐rater reliability and agreement • Feedback from supervisor
Teacher Leaders and peer coaches will be trained in:
• Book read of The Art and Science of Teaching • iObservation Training • Developing and guiding professional growth plans • Conducting pre-‐observation and post-‐observation conferences; • Observing the professional practice of teachers
Educators will be trained in:
• The Art and Science of Teaching Framework; • The structure and components of the Supervision and Evaluation Plan; • The names and roles of administrators and others whose decisions impact the
educator’s rating; • The professional development opportunities provided to assist in meeting
professional practice standards; • The results and consequences of receiving each type of summative rating.
24
Peer Review Peer to peer review is a required component of the Teacher Effectiveness evaluation process. Any teacher can engage in a Peer Review process with at least one willing peer. The purpose of peer review is to help one another grow by reviewing and collaborating on practice.
o Key Actions -‐ no training necessary, many options, follow protocols*
o Examples include but are not limited to: book study group, journal article discussion group, Lesson Study, Critical Friends, peer observation, video review of a lesson, review of student work, review of teacher portfolios (protocols for each are needed -‐ use existing where they exist -‐ update)
25
Implications Based on Level of Performance Continuing Contract Teachers Innovating or Applying Teachers performing at the Innovating or Applying level of performance in each of the 4 domains will continue the regular evaluation process and follow the procedures set forth in the teacher evaluation system for continued growth. Developing If a teacher has been observed and has received from his/her supervisor an overall rating of Developing on one or more of the four Domains, that teacher’s annual goals will specifically focus on moving from Developing to Applying. The teacher will continue the regular evaluation process and follow the procedures set forth in the teacher evaluation system for continued growth unless placed on Intensive Administrative Review. If the teacher receives an overall rating of Developing on any of the 4 domains, he/she may be placed on Intensive Administrative Review at the discretion of the supervisor. At the end of the period of Intensive Administrative Review, a teacher who receives a performance score of Innovating or Applying in the domain(s) of concern will continue the regular evaluation process and follow the procedures set forth in the teacher evaluation system for continued growth. At the end of the period of Intensive Administrative Review, a teacher who continues to receive a performance score of Developing in the domain(s) of concern may be considered for immediate release from district employment or may be considered for an extension of the Intensive Administrative Review. Beginning/Not Using If a teacher has been observed and has received from his/her supervisor an overall rating of Beginning/Not Using on one or more of the four Domains, or if the teacher has been otherwise identified as not meeting professional standards by the supervisor, he/she will be placed on Intensive Administrative Review for at least six months, not including July and August, and not longer than two years. A monitored growth plan will, at minimum, identify the standards to be improved immediately, the goals to be accomplished, the activities that must be undertaken to improve, and the timeline for improving performance to the proficient level.
26
At the end of the period of Administrative Review, a teacher who continues to receive a performance score of Beginning/Not Using in the domain(s) of concern should be considered for immediate release from district employment. These guidelines do not preclude the supervisor from placing the teacher on Intensive Administrative Review at his/her discretion. None of the above procedures precludes the Superintendent recommending non-‐renewal or dismissal at any time if the need should arise.
27
Forms and Protocols
• Teacher Evaluation Form • Teacher Evaluation Summative Rating Worksheet • Professional Growth Plan Goal Setting Form • Peer Observation Protocol • Peer Observation Form • Instructional Round Protocol • Instructional Round Forms (x3) • Professional Development Activity Log • Intensive Administrative Review Plan
28
Teacher Evaluation Form
Robert Marzano’s Art and Science of Teaching provides the framework for the Five Town CSD/ MSAD # 28 supervision and evaluation process. It is used by teachers for self-‐reflection and/or peer feedback and by administrators for feedback, supervision, and evaluation. The descriptors under each element in the evaluation tool should be considered examples of the element. Descriptors are not all-‐inclusive nor should teachers seek to use all of them in a given lesson, unit, or professional activity. While the scales that accompany each element of the four domains are useful in providing specific feedback for supervision, and informing a design question rating, it is not expected that every element nor every design question will be rated in a summative evaluation. In any given evaluation cycle, a specific set of elements will be identified as an area of focus for collecting and summarizing evidence and making a determination of effectiveness of practice within a domain. In the 2015-‐16 pilot year, we chose to focus on Design Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8. Signing this form indicates receipt of the evaluation, not agreement with it.
Teacher Name Date
School Assignment
☐ 1st year teacher ☐ 2nd year teacher ☐3rd year teacher ☐Continuing contract
I. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES
DOMAIN 1 – CLASSROOM STRATEGIES & BEHAVIORS ______ • DQ1: Communicating Learning Goals & Feedback _____ • DQ3: Helping Students Practice & Deepen New Knowledge _____ • DQ5: Engaging Students _____ • DQ6: Establishing Rules & Procedures _____ • DQ8: Establishing & Maintaining Effective Relationships with Students Overall Rating For Domain 1 – Classroom Strategies & Behaviors: ☐ 1 – Beginning/not using ☐ 2 -‐ Developing ☐ 3-‐ Applying ☐ 4 – Innovating
Comments, evidence, commendations and recommendations:
29
DOMAIN 2 – PLANNING & PREPARING • Planning & Preparing for Lessons & Units • Planning & Preparing for Use of Resources and Technology • Planning & Preparing for the Needs of English Language Learners • Planning & Preparing for the Needs of Students Receiving Special Education • Planning & Preparing for the Needs of Students Who Lack Support for Schooling Overall Rating For Domain 2 – Planning & Preparing: ☐ 1 – Beginning/not using ☐ 2 -‐ Developing ☐ 3-‐ Applying ☐ 4 – Innovating
Comments, evidence, commendations and recommendations:
DOMAIN 3 – REFLECTING ON TEACHING • Evaluating Personal Performance • Developing & Implementing a Professional Growth Plan
Overall Rating For Domain 3 – Reflecting on Teaching: ☐ 1 – Beginning/not using ☐ 2 -‐ Developing ☐ 3-‐ Applying ☐ 4 – Innovating
Comments, evidence, commendations and recommendations:
30
DOMAIN 4 – COLLEGIALITY & PROFESSIONALISM • Promoting a Positive Environment • Promoting Exchange of Ideas and Strategies • Promoting District and School Development
Overall Rating For Domain 4 – Collegiality & Professionalism: ☐ 1 – Beginning/not using ☐ 2 -‐ Developing ☐ 3-‐ Applying ☐ 4 – Innovating
Comments, evidence, commendations and recommendations:
OVERALL SCORE
Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Overall (____ x.35) + (____ x.20) + (____ x.10) + (____ x.35) =
Additional Comments (optional):
Teacher Comments (optional):
Evaluator Signature Date
Teacher Signature Date
31
Teacher Evaluation Summative Rating Worksheet Years 2015-‐19 Domain 1 Score _________ x .35 = A. ___________ Domain 2 Score _________ x .20 = B. ___________ Domain 3 Score _________ x .10 = C. ___________ Domain 4 Score _________ x .35 = D. ___________ Summative Score (Sum of A thru D) = F. _____________ Beginning the 2019-‐20 School Year Domain 1 Score _________ x .28 = A. ___________ Domain 2 Score _________ x .16 = B. ___________ Domain 3 Score _________ x .08 = C. ___________ Domain 4 Score _________ x .28 = D. ___________ Student Growth Score _________ x .20 = E. ____________ *See Appendix A in Handbook Summative Score (Sum of A thru E) = F. _____________ Overall Summative Score Level of Effectiveness
3.0 – 4
Highly Effective (score between 3 – 4,no score of 1 or 2 in domains)
2.5 – 2.99
Effective (score between 2.5 – 2.99, no score of 1 in domains)
1.75 – 2.49 Partially Effective 1 – 1.74
Ineffective
(score between 1 – 1.74, no score of 4 in Prof Practices)
Summative Effectiveness Rating: _______________________________________ Evaluator’s Recommendations (include recommendation for hire, non-‐renewal and /or Intensive Support, commendations and recommendations for future growth):
Teacher Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _____________
Evaluator Signature____________________________________ Date: _____________
Note: Your signature confirms that you have had an opportunity to read this report, and that you have a copy. It does not indicate that you necessarily agree with the report. You may add comments to this report, as you find appropriate.
32
Annual Goal Setting Form Teachers will conduct a self-‐reflection using the Marzano Teacher Evaluation Framework every fall. Based on this reflection, teachers will create 1 – 3 goals for the year. Possible activities to meet these goals are Professional Learning Activities found on the Annual Goal Setting section of this handbook (Page 20.) Other activities may be approved by the building administrator. The only exception to the goal setting process will be teachers on Intensive Administrative Review and teachers with 0 – 1 years of experience. Teacher Name: Date: Evaluation Cycle: Y1 Y2 Y3
GOAL ACTIONS/ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE
OBSERVABLE OUTCOMES
Teacher Signature: Date: Supervisor Approval: Comments:
33
CERTIFICATION REMINDER: Teachers using these activities for recertification must have CERTIFICATION GOALS on file and “PRIOR APPROVALS” submitted to the Certification Committee prior to beginning these activities.
34
Peer-‐to-‐Peer Observation In a peer observation, one teacher observes a colleague in teaching situation. The main purpose is to encourage professional dialogue about instruction and learning. In addition, it is an excellent opportunity for the visiting teacher to see other teachers in action and to learn from them. For the teacher being observed, it can be a chance to get some peer feedback using the protocol and forms below. A classroom visit provides opportunities for colleagues to develop and to share their understanding and knowledge about . professional practices . student learning and achievement . a vision of our school’s mission CLASSROOM VISIT PROTOCOL Guidelines for a Successful Classroom Visit • The visit can be requested by either the observing or the observed teacher, but must be
mutually agreed upon. • Allow sufficient observation time, avoiding a quick and superficial snapshot. • Student learning should be at the center. • The visit and the conversation should be kept confidential. Before the Visit . The person who requested the observation should let the other person know the areas where
they want feedback or want to observe. During the Visit • The observer should take notes that include description rather than interpretation or
judgment. (For example, “The teacher clearly outlined the essential outcome at the start of class,” instead of, “The teacher did an excellent job letting students know the essential outcomes.”
After the Visit • Debriefing conversations should be scheduled as soon as possible after the observation. • During these conversations, the observer should share the notes taken on the peer
observation form. • The debriefing should allow both participants to share what each of them has learned from
the observation experience. • In giving feedback during the debriefing, the observer should remember that the conversation
should focus on what took place during the observation session. (This is where the observer's notes as a record of evidence can be especially valuable.)
• The observer's feedback/comments should be specific, with reference to events noted, and as objective as possible. Avoid giving feedback on what you thought about what you observed unless asked. Stick to what you saw, heard, tracked, etc.
• During the debriefing, the observer and the person observed should have the opportunity to share observations, questions, and suggestions about changes in professional practice that could restructure the learning opportunities for students.
35
PEER OBSERVATION NOTE GUIDELINES Class/No. of students Types of activities Topic of lesson Objective of Observation:
Data Collected if applicable:
Make any notes about the following if relevant to the observation: Were learning goals posted or verbally provided?
Was there evidence of classroom routines?
What was the response to disruptive behavior?
Were students engaged? What was done to engage them?
What questioning techniques did you notice?
How was new information presented?
What did you notice about the relationship between the teacher and students?
Was there any evidence of best practices vocabulary instruction during the observation period?
Was there any evidence of differentiation?
Other:
What did you learn that can help you?
36
Instructional Rounds: Twenty Rules of Thumb Asking and answering key questions in advance of a school’s launching of instructional rounds offers an opportunity for maximizing the central purpose of the experience; that is, learning from each other. But referring to these guidelines as “rules of thumb” makes the obvious point that there are a useful variety of good approaches to conducting rounds. From the experience of many schools we have learned… Whose classrooms should we visit?
1. The classrooms of effective teachers. A struggling teacher is likely not to provide the example of good teaching that can serve as a prompt for great discussions; and we do not want to embarrass a colleague.
2. And initially, the classrooms of volunteers. 3. Classrooms where instructional coaches are offering demonstration lessons are
likely venues for seeing great teaching. Should the students be told in advance that a rounds group is going to be visiting?
4. Absolutely. This is a chance to let students know that teachers in this school are committed to learning from each other.
Who leads the rounds group?
5. A master teacher (perhaps an instructional coach, or a grade-‐level chair, or a department chair). The rounds leader must be steeped in the school’s instructional framework.
Is there an ideal group size?
6. There isn’t an ideal group size but, for a robust debriefing discussion, the group should be larger than three people.
7. But, groups of more than six can overwhelm the teaching and learning that is going on.
Is there an ideal mix of observers?
8. No, but the more diverse the group in teaching experience, grade levels taught, departments, and/or levels of schooling the more interesting a profitable the debriefing discussions.
How long should we stay?
37
9. Between 15 and 20 minutes is a useful time. The rounds leader needs to be alert to a natural break in the lesson and, with a nod of the head, indicate that it’s time for the rounds group to leave.
10. It is not imperative that the observing group get to the classroom just as a lesson is beginning. Almost any 15-‐20 minute visit will provide more than enough fodder for productive debriefing discussion.
What are we looking for?
11. Sometimes this is the wrong question. A more useful phrasing may be “What am I prepared to see?” Related to the next question about taking notes, we recommend taking into the classroom an abbreviated version of the school’s instructional framework with room for notes (two-‐sides of a single sheet of paper and a clipboard and pencil, or the framework loaded onto a hand-‐held device). It is the school’s framework of good teaching that serves as the lens through which a classroom visit is viewed.
12. However, there are times when it is appropriate to agree in advance that there are specific instructional strategies and behaviors that will be of particular interest.
Is note-‐taking during the classroom visit appropriate and/or mandatory?
13. “Yes” to the first, and “no” to the second. But, if notes are not taken during the classroom visit, time should be set aside before the debriefing conversation begins so that participants can capture their key observations in writing.
How soon after the classroom visit should the debriefing discussion be scheduled, and how long does it last?
14. Ideally, immediately after leaving the classroom and reconvening in a conference room or empty classroom. In order to have the classroom observation fresh, the debrief should happen the same day if it can’t be back-‐to-‐back with the visit.
15. Typically an energetic debriefing discussion will require 25 minutes. What are the key components of a debriefing conversation?
16. It is the job of the rounds leader to launch the debriefing conversation and to be prepared to continuously link debriefing comments to the school’s instructional framework.
17. A key component is always the identification of the elements of the school’s instructional framework that were in evidence. This can be an interesting point of discussion since it’s likely that the same instructional moment may strike members of the rounds group in different ways.
18. The key question is, “How did what I just observed reinforce, validate, or challenge my own instructional practice?” or “Given the skillful example provided by the observed teacher, are there things that I want to consider adding or altering in my instructional practice?”
Feedback to the observed teacher isn’t the central purpose of an instructional rounds visit, but what if it’s requested?
38
19. The rounds leader should be prepared to provide both a “thank you” and, if requested, feedback to the observed teacher. Useful feedback is never a criticism of something that happened during the visit, but instead a highlighting of the two or three things that caught the visitors’ attention and that prompted the most fruitful conversation.
What about confidentiality?
20. What is said in a rounds debriefing discussion stays in the rounds debriefing discussion. We owe confidentiality to each other and especially to the person who has opened their classroom to an instructional rounds visit.
David Livingston Marzano Research Laboratory September, 2012
39
Instructional Rounds: Engagement and Relationships Design question #5: What will I do to engage students? 1. Noticing and reacting when students are not engaged
2. Using academic games 3. Managing response rates during questioning 4. Using physical movement 5. Maintaining a lively pace 6. Demonstrating intensity and enthusiasm 7. Using friendly controversy 8. Providing opportunities for students to talk with themselves 9. Presenting unusual or intriguing information Design question #8: What will I do to establish and maintain effective relationships with students? 13. Understand students’ interests and backgrounds
14. Using behaviors that indicate affection for students. 15. Displaying objectivity and control Design question #9: What will I do to communicate high expectations for all students? 16. Demonstrating value and respect for low expectancy students.
17. Asking questions of low expectancy students
18. Probing incorrect answers with low expectancy students.
40
Instructional Rounds: Lesson Segments Addressing Content Design question #2: What will I do to help student effectively interact with new knowledge? 1. Identifying critical information
2. Organizing students to interact with new knowledge 3. Previewing new content 4. Chunking content into “digestible” bites 5. Group processing of new information 6. Elaborating on new information 7. Recording and representing knowledge 8. Reflecting on learning Design question #3: What will I do to help students practice and deepen their understanding of new knowledge? 9. Reviewing content
10. Organizing students to practice and deepen knowledge 11. Using homework 12. Examining similarities and differences 13. examining errors in reasoning 14. Practicing skills, strategies and processes. 15. Revising knowledge. Design question #4: What will I do to help students generate and test hypothesis about new knowledge? 16. Organizing students for cognitively complex tasks.
17. Engaging students in cognitively complex tasks involving hypothesis generating and testing 18. Providing resources and guidance
41
Instructional Rounds: Classroom Management I. Lesson Segments Involving Routine Events
Design Question #1: What will I do to establish and communicate learning goals, track student progress and celebrate success?
1. Provide clear learning goals and scales to measure those goals.
2. Tracking student progress
3. Celebrating student success Design Question #6: What will I do to establish or maintain classroom rules and procedures?
4. Establishing classroom routines
5. Organizing the physical layout of the classroom for learning
II. Lesson Segments Enacted on the Spot
Design question #7: what will I do to recognize and acknowledge adherence and lack of adherence to rules and procedures? 10. Demonstrating “withitness”
11. Applying consequences 12. Acknowledging adherence to rules and procedures
42
Evidence of Professional Development Activity Log It is nearly impossible for an administrator to have an awareness of the totality of any individual teacher’s professional development activities during the evaluation cycle. This log will help the teacher track, and therefore the administrator to better understand, professional development activities. 2015-‐16 2016-‐17 2017-‐18 1. Formal school/district wide committees
(exclude dept/team)
2. Leadership Positions 3. Conferences/
Workshops
4. Other
43
Intensive Administrative Review Form Teacher:______________________ Supervisor:______________________
Date of Notification of Intensive Review: __________
By signing below I acknowledge that the Intensive Administrative Review Plan has been received and reviewed. ________________________________________ ___________________ Teacher Date ________________________________________ ___________________ Supervisor Date
DOMAIN AND STANDARDS
ACTIONS/ ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE
OBSERVABLE OUTCOMES COMPLETION DATES
44
Appendix A: CALCULATING TOTAL SCORE starting in 2019-‐20 Group A (ELA/Math Teachers in grades 4 – 8)
Professional Practice 80%
Student Learning Growth 20%
MEASURES Performance on each of 4 domains SL0 – 15% MEA – 5%
SOURCE
Observations, Conferences, evidence
Pre post Assessment using Performance Gap Reduction
MEA Spring to Spring growth for cohort
CALCULATION Average 4 domains See associated scale to determine points
OVERALL RATING 1 to 4 OVERALL RATING 1 to 4 .28(D1) + .16(D2) + .08(D3) + .28(D4) + .15 (SLO) + .05 (MEA) = TOTAL SCORE Group B (All other teachers)
Professional Practice 80%
Student Learning Growth 20%
MEASURES Performance on each of 4 domains District SL0 – 20%
SOURCE
Observations, Conferences, evidence
Pre post Assessment using Performance Gap Reduction
CALCULATION Average 4 domains See associated scale to determine points OVERALL RATING 1 to 4 OVERALL RATING 1 to 4 ..28(D1) + .16(D2) + .08(D3) + .28(D4) + .20 (SLO) = TOTAL SCORE
45
Appendix B: Student Growth Rating Worksheet Student Max Score
Possible Pre-‐Assessment Score
Performance Gap
Post-‐Assessment Score
Mean Growth Gain
A B C D E F G H I J
Mean Performance Gap
Mean Growth % Performance Gap Reduction (round to the nearest
whole number)
Convert % score above to rating score
PGR Rating 0-‐24% 0.95
25 – 30% 1.00 31 -‐ 35% 1.50 36 -‐ 40% 1.75 41-‐ 45% 2.0 46 -‐ 50% 2.25 51-‐55% 2.5 55-‐60% 2.75 61-‐65% 3.0 66-‐70% 3.25 71-‐75% 3.5 76-‐85% 3.75
86 -‐ 100% 4.00
46
Appendix C: Performance Gap Reduction Student Growth Measure Explanation Step 1: Pre-‐assess; score NOTE: The PGR method does not require teachers to set a growth target for a cohort. Step 2: Calculate the mean performance gap among students Step 3: Post-‐assess; score Step 4: Calculate the mean growth among students Step 5: Calculate % Mean Performance Gap Reduction Step 6: Determine the teacher's impact rating on the RPG Impact Scale Step 1: Preassessment
• Teacher designs assessment and determines total point value. • Teacher administers the assessment to cohort of students in first two weeks of
course. • Teacher scores the assessment and records scores in electronic document
provided.
Student Max Score Possible Pre-‐Assessment Score
A 250 95 B 250 86 C 250 222 D 250 37 E 250 103 F 250 214 G 250 230 H 250 78 I 250 87 J 250 200
47
Step 2: Calculate Mean Performance Gap Student Max Score Possible Pre-‐Assessment
Score Performance Gap
A 250 95 155 B 250 86 164 C 250 222 28 D 250 37 213 E 250 103 147 F 250 214 36 G 250 230 20 H 250 78 172 I 250 87 163 J 250 200 50
Mean Performance Gap 1,148 ÷ 10 ≈ 114.8
• The performance gap will automatically calculate. • It is the difference between the student score and the maximum possible score. • The Mean Performance Gap is the average of each student’s performance gap.
48
Step 3: Post Assess Student Max Score
Possible Pre-‐Assessment Score
Performance Gap Post-‐Assessment Score
A 250 95 155 194 B 250 86 164 167 C 250 222 28 236 D 250 37 213 135 E 250 103 14 171 F 250 214 36 231 G 250 230 20 240 H 250 78 172 162 I 250 87 163 193 J 250 200 50 229
Mean Performance Gap 1,148 ÷ 10 ≈ 114.8
• Teacher administers the same assessment to cohort of students within two
weeks of the time interval’s end (quarter, trimester, semester). • Teacher scores the post assessment and records scores in electronic document
provided.
49
Step 4: Calculate Mean Growth Student Max Score
Possible Pre-‐Assessment Score
Performance Gap
Post-‐Assessment Score
Mean Growth Gain
A 250 95 155 194 99 B 250 86 164 167 81 C 250 222 28 236 14 D 250 37 213 135 98 E 250 103 147 171 68 F 250 214 36 231 17 G 250 230 20 240 10 H 250 78 172 162 84 I 250 87 163 193 106 J 250 200 50 229 29
Mean Performance Gap 1,148 ÷ 10 ≈ 114.8
606 ÷ 10 ≈ Mean Growth 60.6
• The growth gain for each student is the difference between the pre and post
assessment scores. • The mean growth gain is the average of all the student’s growth.
50
Step 5: Calculate Percent Performance Gap Reduction Student Max Score
Possible Pre-‐Assessment Score
Performance Gap
Post-‐Assessment Score
Mean Growth Gain
A 250 95 155 194 99 B 250 86 164 167 81 C 250 222 28 236 114 D 250 37 213 135 98 E 250 103 147 171 68 F 250 214 36 231 17 G 250 230 20 240 10 H 250 78 172 162 84 I 250 87 163 193 106 J 250 200 50 229 29
Mean Performance Gap 1,148 ÷ 10 ≈ 114.8
606 ÷ 10 ≈ Mean Growth 60.6
% Performance Gap Reduction—60.6/114.8 ≈ 53 % (round to the nearest whole number)
• The PGR is the Mean Growth Gain/Mean Performance Gap. • The result is a % that represents the average % your cohort closed the gap
between the pre-‐and post-‐assessment against the maximum possible points. • This percentage is plugged into the table on the next page to determine the
points for the SLO measure in the evaluation tool.
51
Appendix D: Conversions of Ratings to points and vice versa I. Conversion of Marzano Scales to Four Point Rating Innovating 4 Applying 3 Developing 2 Beginning 1 Not Using 1 II. Conversion of Combined Professional Practice and Student Growth Ratings to Levels of Effectiveness
Overall Summative Score Level of Effectiveness
3.0 – 4
Highly Effective (score between 3 – 4,
no score of 1 or 2 in domains) 2.5 – 2.99
Effective
(score between 2.5 – 2.99, no score of 1 in domains)
1.75 – 2.49 Partially Effective 1 – 1.74
Ineffective
(score between 1 – 1.74, no score of 4 in Prof Practices)
Note:
• In order to be rated highly effective, a teacher must not receive a score of 1 or 2 in any of the four domains of professional performance.
• In order to be rated effective, a teacher must not receive a score of 1 in any of the four domains of professional performance.
• In order to be rated ineffective, a teacher must not receive a score of 4 in any of the four domains of professional performance.
52
Example of Calculation of Professional Practice and Student Growth Converted to Level of Effectiveness
Part I: Professional Practice Teacher A received the following ratings on the summative evaluation for professional practice (80% of total score, but weighted by Domain): Domain 1 3 Domain 2 3 Domain 3 2 Domain 4 1 Part II: Student Growth Classroom cohort measure (20% of total score) – Results converts to a score of 3 Part III: Calculation .28(3) + .16(3) + .08(2) + .28(1) + .2(3) = 2.36 2.36 is converted to a rating of “Partially Effective”
