Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)

Joint Education Committee Meeting

December 12, 2012

1

Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectivenessA research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectiveness

M-STAR’s Goal: To improve teacher practice and positively impact student learning

M-STAR:• provides a reliable and valid process based on common standards,

• includes multiple measures,

• indentifies areas of strength and challenge, and• helps track educational progress to improve the performance of

teachers.

2

Research confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students’ achievement.

Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways:• Lack sufficient connection to goals for student

learning and growth• Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for

improvement• Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness

3

The National Perspective:The National Perspective:Research and ReportsResearch and Reports

Trends in Teacher EvaluationTrends in Teacher Evaluation

Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluation

Focus on models and measures that help teachers/schools/districts improve performance

Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher evaluation measures and models

4

U.S. Department of Education Priority U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachersfor Identifying Effective Teachers

Method for determining and identifying effective andhighly effective teachers:

Must include multiple measures

Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth

Supplemental measures may include multiple observation based instruments

5

Defining Teacher QualityDefining Teacher Quality “Highly qualified teacher”

status:

Bachelor’s degree

Full state certification

Demonstrated knowledge of assigned subject(s)

“Highly effective teacher” status:

Student academic growth

Other measures

6

Defining Teacher QualityDefining Teacher Quality Stakeholder engagement

- Mississippi Teachers of the Year

- State Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC)

- Meetings with Teachers and Principals

- Teacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers)

- Teacher Organizations

- Mississippi Association of School Superintendents

Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to streamline and redesign instrument

7

Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)in Mississippiin Mississippi

• Five Year Federal Grant• Awarded September 2010• $ 10.7 Million Award for MS• Serves 10 schools in 7 districts• Multi-strategy approach to

school improvement

8

Multiple StrategiesMultiple StrategiesFive TIF Project Components for

School Improvement

1.Educator Evaluation2.Student Growth Data3.Professional Development4.Career Ladders for Teachers5.Performance Based Compensation

9

M-STARDOMAINS, STANDARDS,

PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND RATINGS

10

M-STAR M-STAR Why a standardized process?

Increases the validity of the evaluation and the reliability of the evaluation instruments

Ensures teachers are evaluated fairly, using consistent criteria

Ensures that scores are based on evidence, not on personal judgment or bias

Strengthens evaluative decisions

11

How is M-STAR Different?How is M-STAR Different?Traditional

ObservationsEvidence-Based

ObservationsSingle time point for classroom

observationMultiple time points for classroom

observation

Use of “checklist” tools (strength/weakness, yes/no)

Use of rubrics that define instructional improvement on a

continuumHigh performance ratings given to

almost all teachersVariations in performance ratings

among teachers

Does not include student outcomes Links teacher effectiveness to student performance

12

13

Mississippi StatewideMississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)

Five domains (weighted equally)

1.Planning

2.Assessment

3.Instruction

4.Learning Environment

5.Professional Responsibilities

20 StandardsFour levels of effectiveness:

1. Unsatisfactory

2. Emerging

3. Effective

4. Distinguished

A teacherA teacher’’s summative rating is based on two components: s summative rating is based on two components: Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.

Professional Practice: 50%

M-STAR: 30%– 2 formal observations– 5 informal observations

(walkthroughs)

Professional Growth Goals: 20%– Self-evaluate, receive feedback,

and progress toward goals

Student Outcomes: 50%

Individual Growth– State tested areas OR

Student Learning Objectives – Non-tested areas AND

School-wide Growth– Tested and Non-tested

14

PGGs20%

M-STAR30% Student

Outcomes50%

0

Formal Observation CycleFormal Observation Cycle

15

Review lesson plan,

understand context,

& ask clarifying questions

Key Questions: What are students

learning? What is the evidence

of this learning?

Effective, concrete

feedback & next steps are

critical.

Observe feedback in action

Scoring ProcessScoring Process

Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard

4 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

Within each domain, the points will be averaged.

The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating.

16

M-STAR RatingsM-STAR RatingsA teacher’s performance will be appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale:

Level 4 Distinguished: indicates that the teacher’s performance consistently exceeds expectations.

Level 3 Effective: indicates that the teacher’s performance meets expectations.

Level 2 Emerging: indicates that the teacher’s performance inconsistently meets expectations.

Level 1 Unsatisfactory: indicates that the teacher’s performance does not meet expectations.

17

ExampleExample: Summative : Summative Observation RatingObservation Rating

Domain Domain Score

Weight Weighted Rating

I: Planning 2.75 x .20 .55

II: Assessment 4 x .20 .80

III: Instruction 2.5 x .20 .50

IV: Learning Environment 3.5 x .20 .70

V: Professional Responsibilities 2.5 x .20 .50

Summative Classroom Observation Rating 3.05

18

(2.75 + 4 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 2.5)5

Pilot Implementation (TIF) 2011 - 2012

Statewide Training on New System July 2012 – July 2013

Field Test the System 2013 - 2014

Full Implementation 2014 - 2015

MS Teacher Evaluation SystemMS Teacher Evaluation System

19

Implementation Timeline

20

M-STAR M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP

RESPONSESRESPONSESPRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCEPRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE

Teachers• Clear expectations for both

teachers and principals• Specific, timely feedback• Principal awareness of what will

occur in the classroom• Teacher/principal communication• Necessity of teacher preparation• Focus on teacher’s strengths and

weaknesses• Teacher self-reflection• Prior identification of potential

problems

Principals• Clear expectations for both

teachers and principals• Opportunity for open dialogue• Information on what

administrators want to observe• Easing of teachers’ anxieties• Relationship building with

teachers• Opportunity for knowledge

gathering• Alerting of principals to special

circumstances

21

M-STAR M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSESTEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCEPOST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCETeachers• Immediate, timely feedback• Dialogue on strengths and areas

of improvement• Opportunity for professional

development and improvement plans

• Self-reflection• Teacher explanations of classroom

activities (planned and unplanned)

Principals• Feedback on strengths and areas

of challenges • Teacher reflection• Open dialogue• Provision of accommodations and

recommendations for improvement

• Relationship building• Teacher input regarding

professional development needs• Time for teacher/administration

collaboration• Opportunity for coaching and

professional learning

22

The The ultimateultimate goal goal of of M-STAR M-STAR isis……

TO IMPROVETEACHING

ANDLEARNING!

TO IMPROVETEACHING

ANDLEARNING!

mstar@mde.k12.ms.us

23