new teacher orientation: alliance teacher effectiveness 2012
DESCRIPTION
New Teacher Orientation: Alliance Teacher effectiveness 2012. July 2012 Diane Fiello , Vice President of TCRP Harris Luu , TCRP Coach http://TCRPalliance.wordpress.com/. Objectives. Overview of CMO participation and context To review the teacher evaluation process - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
NEW TEACHER ORIENTATION:ALLIANCE TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS 2012
July 2012
Diane Fiello, Vice President of TCRP
Harris Luu, TCRP Coach
http://TCRPalliance.wordpress.com/
2
• Overview of CMO participation and context• To review the teacher evaluation process• To learn about the Framework for Effective
Teaching (the 4 domains)• To learn how teacher effectiveness is measured
and review an example• Learn about career paths
Objectives
DRAFT
• Mission to graduate all students—especially low-income and minority students—college-ready
• Original Coalition of four CMOs– Alliance– Aspire Public Schools– Green Dot Public Schools– Partnerships to Uplift Communities– Inner City Education Foundation (ended 2011)
• Decision-making is now mostly independent for each CMO
TCRP Overview
The College Ready Promise – CMO quick facts
Data point Across TCRP*
# of Schools 90
# of Students 31,625
% FRL 82%
% Minority 98%
*quick averages & estimates – not for public use
Aspire
• Grades K-12• 30 Schools• 9,900 students• 68% FRL• 90% minority
PUC
• Grades K-12• 12 schools• 2, 900 students• 99% minority• 70% low SES
Alliance
• Grades 6-12• 20 schools• 8,200 students• 99% minority• 94% FRL
Green Dot
• Grades 6-12• 17 schools• 8,576 students• 94% FRL• 99% minority
http://www.thecollegereadypromise.org/about
DRAFT
• Funding from the Gates Foundation (through 2014) was received for nine specific initiatives:1. Teacher Evaluation
2. Teacher Supports
3. Teacher Residency
4. Principal Leadership
5. Career Path
6. Differentiated Compensation
7. CMO Implementation Team
8. TCRP Hub
9. Data Systems
TCRP Initiatives
• This presentation provides draft information about the current Alliance teacher effectiveness process
• All contents are subject to change
6
IMPORTANT NOTE
TCRP Theoretical Framework
7
Effective Principals• Support• Evaluate
Effective Teachers• Recruit• Support• Evaluate• Compensate
Increase Student Achievement
Data Systems
8
• The objective of the new teacher evaluation process is to promote and compensate based on high teacher performance and/or teacher growth with student results.
• Teachers should be retained if they demonstrate sufficient growth in their practice during the year.
Overall Teacher Evaluation
38 Indicators, 4 levels of
performance
Framework for Effective Teaching
9
Domain 1 Data-Driven Planning and Preparation
Standard 1.1 Establish standards-based learning objectives for instructional plans
IndicatorsA) Selection of objectivesB) Measurability of objectives
4 Domains
17 Standards
Teacher Evaluation 2.0: Design Standards for Teacher Evaluation
• Annual process– All teachers should be evaluated at least annually.
• Clear, rigorous expectations– Evaluations should be based on clear standards of instructional excellence
that prioritize student learning.
• Multiple measures– Evaluations should consider multiple measures of performance, primarily the
teacher’s impact on student academic growth.
• Multiple ratings– Evaluations should employ four to five rating levels to describe differences in
teacher effectiveness.
• Regular feedback– Evaluations should encourage frequent observations and constructive critical
feedback.
• Significance– Evaluation outcomes must matter; evaluation data should be a major factor in
key employment decisions about teachers.
11
• Domain 1: Data Driven Planning and Assessment (lesson plan)
• Domain 2: The Classroom Learning Environment
• Domain 3: Instruction• Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities
(reflection, collaboration, norms, communication)
The 4 Domains
DRAFT
Teacher Evaluation ProcessStage 1
Lesson Plan
Teacher
1) Reviews student data2) Prepares lesson plan/ submits to observer
Observer
1) Reviews lesson plan2) Collects evidence using lesson plan3) Formulates questions
Evidence GatheredDomain 1
Pre-Observation Conference
Teacher
1) Prepares presentation2) Shares with observer3) Answers observer’s questions
Observer
1) Hosts conference2) Listens to presentation3) Asks questions4) Collects evidence
Evidence GatheredDomain 1
Stage 2
Classroom Observation
Teacher
1) Teaches lesson2) Collects student work from the lesson
Observer
1) Observes lesson2) Speaks with students3) Collects evidence4) Provides evidence collected to teacher
Evidence GatheredDomain 2Domain 3
Stage 3
Reflection
Teacher
1) Prepares and submits: -student work samples -lesson reflection -self-ratings
Observer
1) Reviews student work samples and lesson reflection2) Collects evidence 3) Prepares initial ratings
Evidence GatheredDomain 4
Post-Observation
Conference
Teacher
1) Discusses student work analysis and reflection2) Discusses self-ratings3) Makes suggestions for improvement
Observer
1) Hosts conference2) Discusses student work samples, reflection, and initial ratings3) Makes suggestions for improvement5) Finalizes ratings
Ratings Finalized
Domains 1-4
13
Multiple Measures of Teacher Effectiveness
Observa-tion of
Teacher Practice;
40%
Parent and Fam-ily Feedback;
10%
Student Feedback ;
10%
Individual Teacher
SGP; 30%
School-Wide Subject SGP;
10%
Observation of Teacher Prac-
tice; 50%
Parent and Family Feedback; 10%
Stu-dent Feedback
; 10%
School-Wide ELA SGP; 25%
School-Wide Math SGP; 5%
CST-Tested Subjects Non-CST-Tested Subjects
14
Levels of Performance and Student Achievement
“A year’s worth of growth”
9th grade 10th grade
15
Levels of Performance and Student Achievement
LEVEL III
LEVEL IV
LEVEL II
LEVEL I
16
Standards-Based Determination • Overall teacher FET ratings are based on a
running record throughout the school year. • Ratings from formal observations overwrite prior
scores. • Unannounced observations increase or
decrease scores by at most .5 points. • Domain 4 evidence (nonobservational) ratings
overwrite prior scores during the year
Overall Teacher Evaluation Rating
17
Overall Teacher Effectiveness Determination
CST-Tested Teachers Non-CST Tested Teachers
30% Teacher SGP 25% School-Wide ELA SGP
10% School-Wide SGP for Subject
5% School-Wide Math SGP
40% Average of Teacher Effectiveness Ratings
50% Average of Teacher Effectiveness Ratings
10% Student Survey 10% Student Survey
10% School-Wide Parent Survey
10% School-Wide Parent Survey
18
Student Growth Percentile Levels
Rating Percentile Range4 70%-100%
3 50%-69%
2 35%-49%
1 <35%
19
Teacher Effectiveness Levels
Effectiveness Level
Performance Band
Highly Effective 3.6-4.0
Effective 3.0-3.59
Achieving 2.5-2.9
Emerging 2.0-2.49
Entry <2.0
20
Example Math Teacher Calculation
Example Earned Weighting Overall (Earned x Weight)
Individual SGP 60% = 3 30% .9
School-Wide Math SGP 52% = 3 10% .3
Teacher Effectiveness Rating Avg = 2
40% .8
Student Survey Avg = 3 10% .3
Parent Survey Avg = 3 10% .3
SUM: 2.6
Teacher Effectiveness Level = Achieving
Career Path Description
21
Entry
Achieving
Emerging
Highly Effective (Score achieved and maintained)
Master Teacher Coach Administrator
Ex:Mentor (residency)Lab classroom
Ex:Curriculum SpecialistDirector of Instruction
Ex:Assistant PrincipalPrincipal Intern
Residency Other new teachers
Experienced new
teachers (provisional
score)
22
• Overview of CMO participation and context• To review the teacher evaluation process• To learn about the Framework for Effective
Teaching (the 4 domains)• To learn how teacher effectiveness is measured
and review an example• Learn about career paths
Conclusion