untitled
TRANSCRIPT
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Joint Education Committee Meeting
December 12, 2012
1
Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)Mississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)A research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectivenessA research-based instrument to evaluate teacher effectiveness
M-STAR’s Goal: To improve teacher practice and positively impact student learning
M-STAR:• provides a reliable and valid process based on common standards,
• includes multiple measures,
• indentifies areas of strength and challenge, and• helps track educational progress to improve the performance of
teachers.
2
Research confirms that teachers and leaders matter most to students’ achievement.
Recent studies find current educator evaluation systems are deficient in three key ways:• Lack sufficient connection to goals for student
learning and growth• Do not provide educators with adequate feedback for
improvement• Fail to differentiate educator effectiveness
3
The National Perspective:The National Perspective:Research and ReportsResearch and Reports
Trends in Teacher EvaluationTrends in Teacher Evaluation
Inclusion of student achievement growth data represents a huge “culture shift” in evaluation
Focus on models and measures that help teachers/schools/districts improve performance
Policy is way ahead of the research in teacher evaluation measures and models
4
U.S. Department of Education Priority U.S. Department of Education Priority for Identifying Effective Teachersfor Identifying Effective Teachers
Method for determining and identifying effective andhighly effective teachers:
Must include multiple measures
Effectiveness evaluated, in significant part, on the basis of student growth
Supplemental measures may include multiple observation based instruments
5
Defining Teacher QualityDefining Teacher Quality “Highly qualified teacher”
status:
Bachelor’s degree
Full state certification
Demonstrated knowledge of assigned subject(s)
“Highly effective teacher” status:
Student academic growth
Other measures
6
Defining Teacher QualityDefining Teacher Quality Stakeholder engagement
- Mississippi Teachers of the Year
- State Teacher Evaluation Council (STEC)
- Meetings with Teachers and Principals
- Teacher Focus Groups (2,000 Teachers)
- Teacher Organizations
- Mississippi Association of School Superintendents
Contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR) to streamline and redesign instrument
7
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)in Mississippiin Mississippi
• Five Year Federal Grant• Awarded September 2010• $ 10.7 Million Award for MS• Serves 10 schools in 7 districts• Multi-strategy approach to
school improvement
8
Multiple StrategiesMultiple StrategiesFive TIF Project Components for
School Improvement
1.Educator Evaluation2.Student Growth Data3.Professional Development4.Career Ladders for Teachers5.Performance Based Compensation
9
M-STARDOMAINS, STANDARDS,
PERFORMANCE LEVELS, AND RATINGS
10
M-STAR M-STAR Why a standardized process?
Increases the validity of the evaluation and the reliability of the evaluation instruments
Ensures teachers are evaluated fairly, using consistent criteria
Ensures that scores are based on evidence, not on personal judgment or bias
Strengthens evaluative decisions
11
How is M-STAR Different?How is M-STAR Different?Traditional
ObservationsEvidence-Based
ObservationsSingle time point for classroom
observationMultiple time points for classroom
observation
Use of “checklist” tools (strength/weakness, yes/no)
Use of rubrics that define instructional improvement on a
continuumHigh performance ratings given to
almost all teachersVariations in performance ratings
among teachers
Does not include student outcomes Links teacher effectiveness to student performance
12
13
Mississippi StatewideMississippi Statewide Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)Teacher Appraisal Rubric (M-STAR)
Five domains (weighted equally)
1.Planning
2.Assessment
3.Instruction
4.Learning Environment
5.Professional Responsibilities
20 StandardsFour levels of effectiveness:
1. Unsatisfactory
2. Emerging
3. Effective
4. Distinguished
A teacherA teacher’’s summative rating is based on two components: s summative rating is based on two components: Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.Professional Practice and Student Outcomes.
Professional Practice: 50%
M-STAR: 30%– 2 formal observations– 5 informal observations
(walkthroughs)
Professional Growth Goals: 20%– Self-evaluate, receive feedback,
and progress toward goals
Student Outcomes: 50%
Individual Growth– State tested areas OR
Student Learning Objectives – Non-tested areas AND
School-wide Growth– Tested and Non-tested
14
PGGs20%
M-STAR30% Student
Outcomes50%
0
Formal Observation CycleFormal Observation Cycle
15
Review lesson plan,
understand context,
& ask clarifying questions
Key Questions: What are students
learning? What is the evidence
of this learning?
Effective, concrete
feedback & next steps are
critical.
Observe feedback in action
Scoring ProcessScoring Process
Teachers will receive a rating (on a point scale) for each standard
4 points
3 points
2 points
1 point
Within each domain, the points will be averaged.
The averages from each domain will be weighted equally to arrive at a summative rating.
16
M-STAR RatingsM-STAR RatingsA teacher’s performance will be appraised in accordance with a four-level rating scale:
Level 4 Distinguished: indicates that the teacher’s performance consistently exceeds expectations.
Level 3 Effective: indicates that the teacher’s performance meets expectations.
Level 2 Emerging: indicates that the teacher’s performance inconsistently meets expectations.
Level 1 Unsatisfactory: indicates that the teacher’s performance does not meet expectations.
17
ExampleExample: Summative : Summative Observation RatingObservation Rating
Domain Domain Score
Weight Weighted Rating
I: Planning 2.75 x .20 .55
II: Assessment 4 x .20 .80
III: Instruction 2.5 x .20 .50
IV: Learning Environment 3.5 x .20 .70
V: Professional Responsibilities 2.5 x .20 .50
Summative Classroom Observation Rating 3.05
18
(2.75 + 4 + 2.5 + 3.5 + 2.5)5
Pilot Implementation (TIF) 2011 - 2012
Statewide Training on New System July 2012 – July 2013
Field Test the System 2013 - 2014
Full Implementation 2014 - 2015
MS Teacher Evaluation SystemMS Teacher Evaluation System
19
Implementation Timeline
20
M-STAR M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP
RESPONSESRESPONSESPRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCEPRE-OBSERVATION CONFERENCE
Teachers• Clear expectations for both
teachers and principals• Specific, timely feedback• Principal awareness of what will
occur in the classroom• Teacher/principal communication• Necessity of teacher preparation• Focus on teacher’s strengths and
weaknesses• Teacher self-reflection• Prior identification of potential
problems
Principals• Clear expectations for both
teachers and principals• Opportunity for open dialogue• Information on what
administrators want to observe• Easing of teachers’ anxieties• Relationship building with
teachers• Opportunity for knowledge
gathering• Alerting of principals to special
circumstances
21
M-STAR M-STAR TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSESTEACHER AND PRINCIPAL FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES
POST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCEPOST-OBSERVATION CONFERENCETeachers• Immediate, timely feedback• Dialogue on strengths and areas
of improvement• Opportunity for professional
development and improvement plans
• Self-reflection• Teacher explanations of classroom
activities (planned and unplanned)
Principals• Feedback on strengths and areas
of challenges • Teacher reflection• Open dialogue• Provision of accommodations and
recommendations for improvement
• Relationship building• Teacher input regarding
professional development needs• Time for teacher/administration
collaboration• Opportunity for coaching and
professional learning
22
The The ultimateultimate goal goal of of M-STAR M-STAR isis……
TO IMPROVETEACHING
ANDLEARNING!
TO IMPROVETEACHING
ANDLEARNING!