Developing a New Teacher Evaluation System:

Faculty Meetings 2011

Developing a New Teacher* Evaluation System:

AGENDA GOALS:

1. To introduce the new state standards for teaching performance: why? what?

2. To review Fauquier County’s response to the state requirements and its implementation process.

*Counselor, Librarian, Specialists, & Administrators will follow this process.

Why New Standards Now?

• STATE: State’s response to legislative mandate and state revision of 2000 standards:The new guidelines and standards will become effective on July 1, 2012… The Code of Virginia requires (1) that teacher evaluations be consistent with the performance objectives (standards) included in the Board of Education’s Guidelines for Uniform Performance Standards and Evaluation Criteria for Teachers, Administrators, and Superintendents and (2) that school boards shall develop procedures in evaluating instructional personnel that address student academic progress….

• FAUQUIER COUNTY: It’s time. Current FCPS evaluation program was developed in 1999 and passed by the school board in 2001.

WHY TEACHERS?

Teachers matter most.• “Teacher effectiveness is THE most significant

school-related variable impacting student learning outcomes” (Hattie, 2009).

• Studies have found that as much as a 30 percentile point difference in student achievement in math and English can be attributed to the quality of teaching over an academic year.

The StudiesStudent Achievement Accounted for by Teacher Effects

StudyApproximate Variability in Student Achievement Explained by Teacher

Effectiveness

Goldhaber (2002) 8.5 percent

Heistad (1999) 9.2 percent

Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges (2004) 7-21 percent

Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain (2005) 15 percent

Munoz & Chang (2007) 14 percent

Teachers Make A DifferenceCatherine Snow (1991). Unfulfilled Expectations. Harvard University Press

HIGH HOME SUPPORT

LOW HOME SUPPORT

HIGH CLASSROOM SUPPORT

100% 100%

MIXED CLASSROOM SUPPORT

100% 25%

LOW CLASSROOM SUPPORT

60% 0%

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN WHO ACHIEVE SUCCESS WITH VARYING LEVELS OF

HOME AND CLASSROOM SUPPORT

Comparative Impact of Effective Versus Ineffective Primary Grade Teachers

Teacher Effectiveness LevelComparative Impact on Student

Achievement

Reading: 25th vs. 75th percentile teacher +0.35 Standard Deviation

Math: 25th vs. 75th percentile teacher +0.48 Standard Deviation

Reading: 50th vs. 90th percentile teacher +0.33 Standard Deviation

Math: 50th vs. 90th percentile teacher +0.46 Standard Deviation

Comparative Impact of Effective Versus Ineffective Primary Grade Teachers

Note: To illustrate the conversion of a standard deviation into percentiles, if a student started at the 50th percentile on a pre-test and her performance increased by 0.50 standard deviation on the post-test, the student would have a score at approximately the 67th percentile -- a gain of 17 percentile points.Stronge, J. H. (2010a), p. 19.

What will change?

BOTTOM LINE.

CURRENT STANDARDS – FIVE (5)(1) classroom environment; (2) planning & assessing instruction; (3) implementing instruction; (4) communication; (5) professionalism

NEW STANDARDS – SEVEN (7) (1) professional knowledge (2) instructional planning (3) instructional delivery (4) assessment of and for student learning (5) learning environment (6) professionalism (7) student academic progress

Another Change: Rating Scale

• CURRENT “SCALE” FOR FINAL EVALUATION– Meets Expectations– Needs Improvement

• NEW SCALE FOR FINAL EVALUATION– Rating scale of four (4) levels (state guidelines)– Example in guidelines:

• (4) Exemplary (3) Proficient• (2) Needs Improvement (1) Unacceptable

A CLOSER LOOK ATTHE 7 STANDARDS

(1) professional knowledge (2) instructional planning(3) instructional delivery (4) assessment of and for student learning (5) learning environment (6) professionalism (7) student academic progress

BIG QUESTIONS

Questions that have emerged in the research and in discussions with teachers and administrators

• Even with these bottom line changes, will (should) the evaluation process be “business-as-usual”?

• If not, how might we improve our process?• Is it possible to make the evaluation process more meaningful

for teachers? Will the teacher be able to contribute to the development of his/her own evaluation? (TEACHER VOICE) ability to make choices about focus for evaluation; ability to provide evidence; ability to provide “context” about classes.

BIG QUESTIONS (CONT’D)

• Will a new process address some of the standard problems with teacher evaluation (e.g., THE “ONE SNAPSHOT” PHENOMENON)?

• What does the standard “student academic progress” mean to the teacher and daily practice?

• Is it possible to make the evaluation process more meaningful and less cumbersome (for principals)?

• How do we give this opportunity our best shot?– Why not “try-on” the new standards before they are required?– Why not try-out several implementation approaches in a real-

time context?

“Trying-On and Trying-Out “

TEACHER EVALUATION FIELD TEST PROCESSSeptember 2011 – May 2012

Our Field Test Guiding Principles

• Participatory– Include teachers in the process; provide opportunities for

many voices• Purposeful– Look at evaluation approaches that have meaning for real

classroom experiences…that acknowledge value of assessment but go beyond one-time test scores…that keep student learning in focus

• Patient– Make this a true search; ask questions; take risks, make

corrections; allow for errors and revisions

Field Test Participants

• Six Schools: Smith, Mary Walter, Coleman, Auburn, Cedar Lee, and Kettle Run

• 3-5 teachers from each of these schools

Field Test Participants:Excellent Teachers and Cross-Section of FCPS Teaching Staff

• Kindergarten• 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

• Special Education• 6th, 7th, 8th

• Science• CTE (Tech. Education)• History and Social

Science

• English• Mathematics• Advanced Placement• Fine Arts• Physical Education• Reading

The teachers….

• Meet to set/clarify goals based on 7 standards.• Teach as always.• Collect evidence to support each standard

(some standards may have more emphasis than others)

• Receive new summative evaluation based on 7 standards.

• Share experiences; suggest changes and additions to the process (ease of use? practicality? vocabulary? respectful?)

How do teachers “collect evidence”?

• The Evidence Log• Teachers will include lists of activities,

artifacts, charts, admin. feedback, tests that demonstrate meeting the standard

Instructional Planning a unit plan

Instructional Delivery student survey(s)

Student Academic Progress pre & post test of a unit

The principals….

• Meet to set/clarify goals based on 7 standards.• Supervise instruction as always.• Provide teacher observation feedback to support

one or more standard• Conduct summative evaluation based on 7

standards. • Share experiences; suggest changes and

additions to the process (ease of use? practicality? vocabulary? respectful?)

What we want to accomplish through the field-testing

• To make our evaluation process better• To see if we can find a feasible way to give teachers more

voice in their own evaluation• To see if we can reduce the “one snapshot” effect• To see if we can create a process that will favorably impact

student learning • To see if we can create a process that encourages teacher &

administrative reflection• To “try-on” the standards with practicing teachers &

administrators –in a real context• To “try-out” a process – in a real context

How Can You Participate?

• Review standards and definitions with your colleagues

• Ask how might you demonstrate the meeting of the standards ---- your choice.

• Share your ideas or questions throughsurvey. (Sent to you next week.)

QUESTIONS?

“Teachers matter most. The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.”(Barber and Mourshed, 2007, p. iii in Stronge (2011), Why Teachers

Matter Most.)

“Trying-On and Trying-Out “

TEACHER EVALUATIONSeptember 2011 – May 2012