WI Educator Effectiveness Powerpoint

Report
An Update on Educator
Effectiveness
1
OCTOBER 10, 2011
Purpose of Educator Effectiveness Design Team
2
 The charge of the Design Team is to develop:
 definitions of key guiding principles of a high-quality educator
effectiveness program,
 model performance-based evaluation systems for teachers and
principals,
 a regulatory framework for implementation that includes how
student achievement data will be used in context, and
 recommendations for methods to support improvement and
incentives for performance.
Educator Effectiveness Design Team
3
Leaders from the following groups are working
collaboratively on the Design Team.









American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (Bryan Kennedy)
Association of Wisconsin School Administrators (AWSA) (Jim
Lynch)
Office of the Governor (Michael Brickman)
Professional Standards Council (PSC) (Lisa Benz)
Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (WACTE)
(Julie Underwood)
Wisconsin Association of Independent Colleges & Universities
(WAICU) (Kathy Lake)
Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) (John Ashley)
Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA)
(Miles Turner)
Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) (Mary Bell)
Educator Effectiveness Design Team
4
 Workgroup
 Jim Lynch (AWSA)
 Julie Brilli (DPI)
 Beverly Cann (DPI)
 Jared Knowles (DPI)
 Kathleen Lyngaas (DPI)
 Amy Marsman (DPI)
 Deb Gurke (WASB)
 Jon Bales (WASDA)
 Ron Jetty (WEAC)
 Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell (School of Education, Dean’s Office)
Educator Effectiveness Design Team
5
 Supporting the Design Team:
 American Institutes for Research (AIR)
 Great Lakes West (GLW)
 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (NCCTQ)
 Wisconsin Center for Educational Research (WCER)
 In addition, informing our work:
 State Consortium on Educator Effectiveness (CCSSO)
(28 states collaborating on the policies and practices that will
improve the effectiveness of our nation's educators)
Timeline
6
 December – Convened
 June - Symposium
 October - Wisconsin educator effectiveness
performance-based framework for teacher and
principals
 20?? – Fully Developed State Model
Design Questions
7
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What are the purposes of the systems?
How will educator practice be evaluated?
How will student achievement & other
outcomes be incorporated?
How will the evaluation process be
administered?
How will the model be implemented
statewide?
Definition of Effective Educators
8
 Effective Teacher: An effective teacher consistently
uses educational practices that foster the intellectual,
social and emotional growth of children, resulting in
measurable growth that can be documented in
meaningful ways.
 Effective Principal: An effective principal shapes
school strategy and educational practices that foster
the intellectual, social and emotional growth of
children, resulting in measurable growth that can be
documented in meaningful ways.
Guiding Principles
9
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.
Seamless System
10
Preservice
Licensing
Inservice
PI34
Evaluation
Teachers
11
Foundation for Teacher Practice
 Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards
Framework for Teacher Evaluation
Charlotte Danielson Domains and Components
Domain 1:
Domain 2:
Domain 3:
Domain 4:
Planning and Preparation
The Classroom Environment
Instruction
Professional Responsibilities
Principals
12
Foundation for Principal Practice
 2008 Interstate School Leaders Licensure
Consortium (ISLLC) standards
Framework for Principal Evaluation
 To be determined
Educator Practice
13
Teacher Practice
 Each component should
be evaluated on multiple
sources of evidence. These
could include:




Observations of teacher
practice
Review of documents
Surveys/data
Discussions with the
teacher
Principal Practice
 Each component should
be evaluated on multiple
sources of evidence. These
could include:





Observations of principal
practice
Review of documents
Interviews with
stakeholders
Surveys/data
Discussions with the
principal
System Weights
14
Educator Evaluation
•State assessment
(value-added growth)
Teachers
•InTASC
•Danielson’s
4 components,
22 elements
•District assessment data
•SLOs
50%
50%
Principals
•School-wide reading
(Elem/Middle)
•Graduation rate
(High School)
•ISLLC
•District choice
Models of Practice
Student Outcomes
Student Outcome Weights
15
Student Outcomes
(represents 50% of evaluation)
5%
5%
State assessment
30%
30%
SLOs
District assessment
30%
PK-8
School-wide reading
(Elem/Mid) (Graduation
HS)
Other (district choice)
Educator Effectiveness System Matrix
* Asterisks indicate a mismatch between educator’s practice performance and student outcomes and requires
a focused review to determine why the mismatch is occurring and what, if anything, needs to be corrected.
Proposed Rating Categories:
Developing------Effective-----Exemplary

similar documents