CCEA Evaluation Committee Andrew Burns (West) Gerry Camilli (CTHS) Jeri-Sue Dean (PEA) Lisa Farley (EHS) Maria Heymans (SHHS) Robin Lopez (Ponderosa) Patricia McConaghy (CIM) Monte Reynolds (Estate) Tim Reyes (OHS) Kim Sakowsky (EHS) Shelley Stancer (PMS) 2012-2015 Work of Content Collaboratives 2012 2013 • Researchers offer assessments for consideration to the Content Collaboratives • Cohorts I & II of Content Collaboratives review/create/recommend assessments for piloting & peer review, based on technical criteria provided by the Technical Steering Committee • Cohort I assessments begin piloting in Fall 2012 to determine its utility within educator effectiveness evaluations • Guiding principles and criteria posted on the website for designing and vetting assessments to be used in ed. Effectiveness evaluations • Continue piloting of Cohort I assessments & begin peer review of assessments in terms of how the assessments function for the purposes of educator effectiveness evaluation • Begin piloting of Cohort II assessments in January 2013, with peer review in summer 2013 • Begin populating Resource Bank with assessments in August 2013 • Content Collaboratives, using identified measures, begin working on instructional practice aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards 2012-2015 Work of Content Collaboratives 2014 • Continue to refine and build the Resource Bank • Build out sophisticated instructional lessons that respond to gaps in student learning 2015 • Continue to refine and build the Resource Bank • Continue to build statewide capacity • Continue build-out of the bank in regards to instructional practices State law requirements: • Conduct performance evaluations for all teachers and principals at least once each school year starting in 2012-13 school year • Base at least half of each teacher’s and principal’s evaluation on multiple measures of students’ academic growth (TCAP, as appropriate, plus other growth data). State law requirements: • Requires all teachers and principals in one of the performance standards, “highly effective”, “effective”, “partially effective”, or “ineffective”. • Award non-probationary status to teachers with three consecutive years of “effective” performance and remove it for those who are not “effective” for two consecutive years. State law requirements: • Consider factors such as student mobility and the numbers of students with disabilities or at risk of failing school. • Require mutual consent of teachers and principals to teacher assignments. • Factor in teacher effectiveness before seniority when considering district-level layoffs. All districts shall evaluate the performance of teachers using an evaluation system that includes the components of the State Framework for Teacher Evaluation Systems: 1. Definition 2. Quality Standards and elements 3. Measuring Performance and Weighting Results 4. Scoring Framework 5. Performance Standards 6. Appeals Must meet or exceed SB 191 requirements Current law 22-9-107 school district personnel evaluation councils require every school district to have an advisory school district personnel evaluation council. Since SB 191 requires districts to implement the evaluation system created by the State Council for Educator Effectiveness, this means that your district will need a functioning council to do this work. Many districts combined this council with other existing committees or this council existed on paper but was not functioning. Implementation of 191 can be done using your 1338 council, but it may require an expansion of that council’s roles/charges beyond the current law. Or, you may have a separate council that will deal with implementation of 191, but your 1338 council still should exist and meet the requirements of the law stated below. At a minimum, as appointed by the BOE, said council shall consist of: One teacher; One administrator; One principal from the school district; One parent with a child in the school district; and One resident of the district who does not have a child in the school district The council may be composed of any other school district committee having proper membership (i.e. District Accountability Committee, Evaluation Task Force, Professional Concerns…). Duties of the council: Shall consult with local board as to fairness, effectiveness, credibility, and professional quality of the licensed personnel performance evaluation system. Shall conduct a continuous evaluation of the system STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers Definition of Teacher Effectiveness Quality Standards I. Know Content II. Establish Environment III. Facilitate Learning 50% Professional Practice Standards Observations of Teaching Other Measures Aligned with CDE Guidelines IV. Reflect on Practice V. Demonstrate Leadership VI. Student Growth 50% Student Growth Measures Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines Match of test to teaching assignments Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Appeals Process Highly Effective I: Teachers demonstrate mastery of and pedagogical expertise in the content they teach. II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive, and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of students. III: Teachers plan and deliver effective instruction and create an environment that facilitates learning for their students. The elementary teacher is an expert in literacy and mathematics IV:isTeachers reflect and knowledgeable in on all other their practice. content that he or she teaches. The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathematics and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area V: Teachers demonstrate leadership. VI: Teachers take responsibility for student academic growth. STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS Framework for System to Evaluate Teachers Definition of Teacher Effectiveness Quality Standards I. Know Content II. Establish Environment III. Facilitate Learning 50% Professional Practice Standards Observations of Teaching Other Measures Aligned with CDE Guidelines IV. Reflect on Practice V. Demonstrate Leadership VI. Student Growth 50% Student Growth Measures Weighting: How Much Does Each Standard Count Towards Overall Performance? State Other Assessments Other Measures Summative for Non-tested Aligned Assessments Areas CDE Guidelines Match of test to teaching assignments Weighting: Scoring Framework: How Do Measures of Quality Standards Result in a Determination of Individual Performance? Performance Standards Ineffective Partially Effective Effective Appeals Process Highly Effective VI. Responsibility for student academic growth Refers to outcomes on a measure that are attributed to an individual licensed person, e.g. DRA2 growth measures for a 1st Grade Teacher’s students Refers to outcomes on a measure are attributed to two or more licensed personnel, e.g. 10th gr. Math TCAP – All Secondary math teachers in school 50% Student Academic Growth Evaluated using the following: (1) a measure of individuallyattributed growth, (2) a measure of collectivelyattributed growth; (3) when available, statewide summative assessment results; and (4) for subjects with statewide summative assessment results available in two consecutive grades, results from the Colorado Growth Model. Need to have everything in each column to move up Quality Standard II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive and respectful learning environment for a diverse population of students. Proficient Not Evident Partially Proficient (Meets State Standard) Accomplished Exemplary Element d: Teachers adapt their teaching for the benefit of all students, including those with special needs across a range of ability levels. There is inadequate evidence that the teacher: Designs instruction to address individual student learning needs. Collaborates with specialists, colleagues and parents to provide understand student needs. Not evident. This describes practices of a teacher who does not meet state performance standards and is not making progress toward meeting them. The teacher: Designs instruction to address specific learning needs of some groups of students (e.g., ELL, LD, special needs, gifted and talented). Challenges all students with the same frequency and depth and monitors the quality of participation. . . . and The teacher: Solicits input from parents, colleagues, specialists, and others to understand students’ learning needs. Implements individualized plans for the content and delivery of instruction. Uses multiple strategies to teach and assess students. Adapts instructional strategies to meet student needs. The focus of Partially Proficient and Proficient levels is what teachers do on a day to day basis to achieve state performance standards and assure that students are achieving at expected levels. . . . and Students: Actively participate in all classroom activities. Articulate an awareness of their learning needs. Reflect about their learning and make adjustments to accommodate their learning needs. . . . and Students: Seek out ways to cope with learning differences and apply coping skills to classroom situations. Share coping strategies and with fellow students. The focus of Accomplished and Exemplary ratings shifts to the impact of the teacher’s practices on student outcomes. 1. Training 9. Goal-Setting & Perf. Planning •Reliability, Validity, Same Foundational Knowledge •Prior to start of school •Teacher develops a professional growth plan •End of June 8. Final Ratings •If not in agreement, take two weeks to collect additional evidence •Mid-June 7. End-of-Year Review •Ratings, self-assessment, artifacts an evidence •End of May 2. Annual Orientation •Forum to review system and changes •Within first week Teacher Evaluation Cycle 3. Self-Assessment • Completed and reflect on past year •Within first two weeks 4. Review of Annual Goals & Performance Plan •School annual goals and performance plan •End of September 6. Evaluator Assessment •Rubric used in an ongoing and consistent manner •Mid-May 5. Mid-Year Review •Clear understanding of potential effectiveness rating •Prior to 2nd semester Districts decide… measures Standards I-V: use observation plus at least one other method Standard VI: select multiple measures appropriate to teaching assignment weights On each Standard I-V districts may weight priority standards more Standard VI must count for at least 50% of total score data collection procedures Standards I-V: Must occur with enough frequency to create a credible body of evidence Standard VI: Must occur with enough frequency to create a credible body of evidence aggregate measures Aggregate professional practice scores into a single score on Quality Standards I-V Aggregate student growth measures into a single score on Quality Standard VI District uses State Scoring Framework Matrix to determine Performance Standard SB-191 allows individual school districts decision making power on: How much weight or value each of the five teaching standards has. How teachers with multiple preps or endorsements be evaluated for student growth Who will be included as evaluators. (SB-191 does allows for peer evaluators) What the remediation process will be for a teacher who is deemed ineffective in one or more areas of the observation tool or student growth. How artifacts of student growth regarding student/family accountability (ex: attendance, lack of student motivation or performance despite documented interventions) will be factored into the evaluation equation. Setting up school district personnel councils (1338’s) and determining what role they play in determining how teacher evaluations and student performance will be measured district-wide or school-based.