alternative teacher evaluation systems

7/25/2019 Alternative Teacher Evaluation Systems

1/18

Alternative TeacherEvaluation Systems

Summary Overview: 2015-16Prepared by the State Board of Education

In partnership w/ the Teacher & Leader Effectiveness Unit (TLEU)

January 2016


2/18

Current Alternative EducatorEvaluation System Application

RequirementsLocal Education Agencies may apply for a waiver to the DelawareDepartment of Education from the Delaware Performance AppraisalSystem II (DPAS-II)1. Application requirements include:

Collective Bargaining/Community Engagement: Evaluation systems

submitted for an alternative evaluation system must be a product of thecollective bargaining process (if applicable) and other requiredcommunity engagement

Student Growth: Evaluation systems must incorporate multiplemeasures of student growth when assessing educator performance

Evaluator Certification: Evaluation systems must contain a mechanismto certify/credential evaluators and ensure quality control

The Department of Education must also ensure that the system is arigorous and as educationally sound at DPAS-II.

2

1. (f) A local school district, vocational-technical school district or charter school may make application to the Department for a waiver of the provisions of the DPAS-II evaluation system, which shall be

granted, subject to the provisions of rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this subchapter, if the request for a waiver is based on a locally developed evaluation process that is demonstrated to be

the product of the collective bargaining process pursuant to Chapter 40 of this title and community review and is as rigorous and as educationally sound as DPAS-II, provides for evaluating educator

performance by measuring student growth using multiple measures over the course of a c urricular year, and contains a mechanism for certifying evaluators and for quality control.


3/18

Summary of Current Efforts

As of school year 2015-2016:

Five different systems (see right) utilize fourdifferent evaluation frameworks (DelawaresCharter Collaboratives I and II both utilizethe Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF))

One traditional district and twelve (12)charter schools have applied and receivedapproval for alternative teacherevaluationsystems

Ten (10) charter schools are members of acohort in order to benefit from economies ofscale, learn from each others efforts, andscale best practices in student goal-settingand observation/feedback cycles

3

Colonial School District (To Be Determined)

Delaware Charter Collaborative I (Fall 2013)

East Side Charter School

Family Foundations Academy Charter

School

Kuumba Academy

Prestige Academy Charter School

Thomas A. Edison Charter School

Las Americas ASPIRA Academy (Fall 2015)

Freire Charter School (Fall 2015)

Delaware Charter Collaborative II (Fall 2015)

Academia Antonia Alonso Charter School

Delaware College Preparatory Academy

Early College High School

First State Military Academy Positive Outcomes Charter School


4/18

Delawares Alternative Teacher

Evaluation Systems - SummarySystemComponent

System #1:

DPAS-II

Systems #2 and #3:

Delaware Charter

Collaborative I and II

System #4:

Freire Charter School

System #5:

Las Amricas ASPIRA

Academy

System #6:

Colonial School District

Observation

Rubric

Charlotte Danielson Teaching Excellence

Framework

Freire Instructional

Principles Framework

Educator Effectiveness

Framework

Colonial Teaching &

Learning Framework

Observations &

Notification

Differentiation between

experienced and novice

All observations are

unannounced

All observations are

unannounced

Differentiation between

benchmark and coaching

Varies; determined at

school leader discretion

Length Minimum of 30 minutes Minimum of 10 minutes Minimum of 10 minutes Benchmark are 60 minutes

and coaching 30 minutes

Minimum of 15 minutes

per observation

Frequency Three times annually Minimum of 8 times per

year

Four times per year from

certified evaluator and

two peer observations

Minimum of 6 times per

year

5-7 times annually,

depending on teacher

classification

Observers DDOE certified evaluators Campus leadership/

certified evaluators

Certified campus

leadership

Professional Learning

Leader

Campus leadership/

certified evaluators

Components

and Weights

Components I-IV

evaluated in all

observations and weighted

equally

Differentiated based on

need (evidence required

4x annually for each rubric

row) and not weighted

equally with focus oninstruction

Two observations focus on

all four components while

other two have

differentiated focus

Dimensions I-IV are

evaluated in all benchmark

and coaching observations

and weighted equally

Performance standards are

evaluated in all

observations (except

walkthroughs) and

weighted equally

Pre-Work Pre-observation form and

conference (if announced)

Timeline/action steps from

previous observation

Timeline/action steps from

previous observation

Not Applicable Contingent on announced

context

Follow-Up Post-observation

conference

Debrief and subsequent

focus on areas of growth

Debrief and

timeline/action steps for

next observation

Debrief and identification

of 2-3 instructional

improvement goals

Debrief and next steps

contingent on observation

type

4


5/18

Alternative Teacher EvaluationSystems: Observation ComponentsThe Department conducted on-site observations in Fall 2015, with focus on the followingcomponents:

Teacher & Leader Support: The LEA has demonstrated commitment towards rigorous andmeaningful teacher and leader support before and during alternative educator evaluationsystem implementation

Evaluator Certification/Credentialing: The LEA has a clear, rigorous process to certify evaluatorsand calibrate ratings to ensure validity and reliability within and between schools

Implementation Fidelity: The LEA has successfully implements all components of proposedalternative educator evaluation system

Implementation Documentation: The LEA has successfully established documentation systemsand protocols to effectively capture implementation efficacy

5


6/18

Teacher & Leader Support

Strengths and Opportunities

Shared Expertise: Collaborative orcharter network provides newentrants access to necessary supports(training, materials, etc.)

Economies of Scale: Sharedframework enables cost savings andmost likely encouraged schools to takeinitial step

Learning Networks: Collaboration

between schools amplifies learningand creates culture of continuousimprovement

Challenges and Barriers

Ownership: Significant variancearound buy-in on culture of feedbackbetween different campuses ofvarying contexts

Leadership: Transitions in campusleadership create lack of coherenceand strategy necessary for smoothimplementation

Differentiated Support: Struggle to

provide ongoing, differentiatedsupport if teacher developmentremains solely at individual campusand is not connected to broaderecosystem of opportunities

6


7/18

Evaluator Credentialing


Purpose: DPAS-II set stage forunderstanding among leaders forshared instructional vision and needto calibrate evaluations

Process: Leaders understand processand reasoning behind evaluatorcredentialing and calibration toensure full faith among teachers

Network of Evaluators: Collaborative

members expressed interest innetwork of evaluators that couldcalibrate as a team


Networks: Campuses dont haveshared responsibility for employees(charter campuses, notably);therefore, its difficult to encourage

calibration between schools duringthe school year, which can isolateindividual schools in theirimplementation.

Leadership: Limited capacity amongleaders to design and deliver

certification/credentialing trainingor even just general trainingas thishas historically been a state ordistrict responsibility

7


8/18

Implementation Fidelity


Timeline: Most schools are on-trackto have all required observations andfeedback cycles done before end ofschool year

Resources: All campuses havenecessary resources (observers, bellschedules, etc.) to complete requiredobservations during year

External Support and Monitoring:

Support from external supports helpsleaders effectively plan andtroubleshoot, if needed


Onboarding: Late start to training(mid-August) has led to slow rolloutamong campuses just starting systemimplementation in the 15-16 schoolyear

Prioritization: Many schools haveother operational issues that distractfrom the core work of improvingteaching and learning

Project Management: Difficult tosuccessfully manage implementationif an identified project lead isntpresent within an LEA

8


9/18

Implementation Documentation


Tool Utilization: Allparticipants used a digital

tool to record theirobservation and feedbackdata

Protocols: All campuseshave a protocol in place tocapture information andenter into tool, with somedifferentiation on its use asa teacher-facing mechanism


State-Approved Platforms:Significant barriers in

utilizing online platforms tocollect and aggregateobservation data due to fullDPAS-II alignment withinthose information systems(on the user-end & back-end)

9


10/18

Key Questions/Considerations andNext StepsKey Questions

What is the process for a system for be placed on formal review or to rescind and LEAs approval?

How can the Department effectively monitor the credentialing of all evaluators so that implementation is done with

fidelity?

How should the Department utilize state-approved platforms to effectively monitor and support LEAs?

Additional Considerations

How can the Department encourage schools/LEAs to seek out highly effective external supports to guide their work?

Are there funds available to help cover start-up/planning costs, such as a project manager?

Are charter schools fully aware of this opportunity when submitting their new charter for initial approval?

10


11/18

Summary of Current Efforts

As of school year 2015-2016:

Five different systems (see right) utilize fourdifferent evaluation frameworks (DelawaresCharter Collaboratives I and II both utilizethe Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF))

One traditional district and twelve (12)charter schools have applied and receivedapproval for alternative teacherevaluationsystems

Ten (10) charter schools are members of acohort in order to benefit from economies ofscale, learn from each others efforts, andscale best practices in student goal-setting

and observation/feedback cycles

11

Colonial School District (To Be Determined)

Delaware Charter Collaborative I (Fall 2013)

East Side Charter School

Family Foundations Academy Charter

School

Kuumba Academy

Prestige Academy Charter School

Thomas A. Edison Charter School

Las Americas ASPIRA Academy (Fall 2015)

Freire Charter School (Fall 2015)

Delaware Charter Collaborative II (Fall 2015)

Academia Antonia Alonso Charter School

Delaware College Preparatory Academy

Early College High School

First State Military Academy Positive Outcomes Charter School


12/18

Delaware CharterCollaborative IITeaching Excellence Framework

1/20/2016 12


13/18

The Teaching Excellence Framework

1. Planning and Preparation

Components 1-3 are measured using the

Teaching Excellence Rubric. Ratings are a

summary of frequent, short lesson

observations throughout the school year.

2. Classroom Environment

3. Instruction and Assessment

4. Professional Responsibilities

Components 4 is measured using the

Teaching Excellence Rubric. Ratings are

based on a student survey, parent survey

and peer survey.

5. Student AchievementComponents 5 is measured by state and

local growth measures (same as DPAS II)

13


14/18


Observation Rubric Based n exemplary rubrics from other states, districts, CMOs

Length 15-20 minutes/observation

Frequency 8 observations per year unannounced

Observers School leaders who participate in several observations and

feedback trainings each ear to ensure strong calibration across

observers

Follow-up Observation debrief occurs within one week

Teacher writes up his/her own summary of the conversation

and next steps

School leader records scores and action steps for

improvementData Observation Sheet Tally

Fall Teacher Survey

Mid-Year Conferences

Parent-Student-Peer Surveys

End of Year

14


15/18


Praise Narrate the positive

Probe Check for Understanding

Start with the goal

Analyze the gap

Close the gap

Action Step Name explicitly the action step; high-leverage, measurable,bite-sized

Plan Ahead Script changes into upcoming lesson plans

Practice Role play how to implement action step in current or future

lessons

Follow-up Set timeline for follow-up

15


16/18

EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK

Las Amricas ASPIRA Academy

16


17/18

Overview ofLAAA Educator Effectiveness Framework

LAAAs strategic plan to close the achievement gap of its students is based upon a four pillar approach:Increasing Educator Effectiveness, Mastery Learning, Data-Driven Instruction, and Culture & Climate.

the effects of well-prepared teachers on student achievement can be stronger than theinfluences of student background factors, such as poverty, language background, and minoritystatus

(Darling-Hammond, 2000, p.33).

MasteryLearning

Data-DrivenInstruction

Culture &Climate

IncreasingEducator

Effectiveness


18/18

Framework ComponentsAnnual

Benchmarking ofTeacher

Effectiveness

FallBenchmarking

and Goal-SettingConference

SpringBenchmarking

End of YearEvaluation

OngoingObservations and

Feed-ForwardProfessional

Learning

Conversations

October-April

No less than 6per educator

Growth ModelSystem to Track

EducatorEffectiveness

TeacherIndicators

StudentIndicators

Evidence of Data-Driven Instructionand Measures of

StudentAchievement

CareerDevelopment

Progression Model

EducatorEffectiveness

CompensationStructure

P1 and P3

teacher

indicator

ratings

Student

Improvement

Measures

Annual

Salary

Schedule

Bonus

Program

Induction

Skillful

Teacher

Lead Teacher

Instructional

Leader

PLL

alternative teacher evaluation systems

Documents