1 a draft teacher development and evaluation based on utla’s ten principles presented by utla...

1

A Draft Teacher Development and Evaluation

Based on UTLA’s Ten Principles

Presented by UTLA Teacher Effectiveness Workgroup

August 19, 2011

2

What do you know…

• What do you know, think or suspect about LAUSD’s plan for changing the evaluation system?

• Use the cards to write your thoughts

3

Who we are…

• Teacher Effectiveness Workgroup

• Chaired by David Goldberg, Former UTLA Treasurer

• 8 members meeting for one year

• UTLA members, staff, CTA staff, and a researcher

• Larger Evaluation Committee

4

Current Workgroup Members• Warren Fletcher, UTLA President• Daniel Barnhart, North Area Chair• Janet Davis, North Area Director• Kate Beaudet, Teacher UCLA CS• Susie Chow, Teacher Advisor for NBCTs• Sharon Harrison, UTLA Staff• Kevin Schaaf, UTLA’s Researcher• David Goldberg, CTA Staff• Norma Sanchez, Researcher CTA• Craig Nelson, CTA Staff-Retired

5

A successful evaluation system will…

• Strengthen student learning

• Build collaboration and teacher leadership

• Provide mentoring and differentiated PD for all teachers– New to the profession– Struggling / needing extra support– Effective & accomplished

6

A successful evaluation system will be…

• Realistic –Prioritize resources

• Comprehensive – Recruitment, Induction, Permanent Status,

Intervention, Professional development

• Designed for the future– New ways to prepare and support teachers– Multiple Career Path options for teacher

leaders

7

Maintain our Purpose

As educators we know that the core purpose of education is not simply to prepare students for college and careers, but also to participate in a democracy.

8

This Model is based on:• 10 Principles approved by the UTLA House

of Reps, Nov. 2010

• 2,400 responses from UTLA’s online survey

• Months of research, debate and feedback – UTLA Members AFT, CTA, researchers

• Feedback from Area Meetings Presentations, Member Forums, eval@utla.net & “Meeting in a Bag” presentations by chapter chairs

9

10 Principles: An Improved Teacher Effectiveness System must:

1.Focus on improving teaching and student learning as the goal.

LAUSD focus -sorting teachers – merit pay

2.Systematically encourage collaboration.LAUSD encourages, individualism and

competition

10

3. Involve teachers in development, implementation, and oversight.LAUSD has not negotiated with UTLA-

superficial teacher involvement.

4. Embed evaluation in a broad reform agenda… address other factors that impact teaching

LAUSD plan does not address their obligation to provide adequate learning

conditions. (safe, clean schools, low class size, etc.,)

11

5. Provide for mutual accountability by giving teachers a meaningful role in evaluating principals.LAUSD’s system – existing hierarchal

relationship – not collaborative, not a system of mutual accountability

6. Differentiate between a Periodic Summative Evaluation and the Professional Growth Process.LAUSD’s system is only a summative

evaluation

12

7. Use data fairly and wisely to inform instruction. Standardized test scores play no part in high stakes decisions.

VAM (AGT) is inconsistent & unreliable

Will lead to unfair, inaccurate ratings.

Not timely or diagnostic.

8. Be integrated with a system-wide program of continuous growth.

As yet no plan to improve the current PD.

13

9. Provide high-quality training on all aspects of the evaluation framework.

LAUSD is unilaterally piloting their system with inadequate training

10. Be developed and implemented with a realistic timeline, subject to a joint UTLA/AALA/LAUSD oversight body.

Not developed or negotiated with UTLA or AALA – no independent oversight.

14

What is the focus of the LAUSD Plan? Rating & Inspection Sorting & Punishing

• VAM/AGT• Observation rubric• Surveys• Little attention to issues beyond

evaluation

Research clearly shows that inspection will not lead to overall improvement

15

What is the focus of the UTLA Ten Principals?

• Strengthening student learning

• Self-assessment

• Professional growth

• Collaboration

• Teacher Leadership-Career Path Options

16

Still developing...

Focus on the beginning

• Develop relationships with universities– University students in classrooms from the beginning– Careful placement of student teachers

• Induction – Supportive, developmental induction– Varied support available– Thoughtful permanent status process

17

Still developing...

Professional Development

• Professional Development during the paid work day.

• Broaden PD focus + opportunities

• Differentiated PD

• Professional Learning Communities

• Leadership/facilitation training +support

18

Compare the plans…What’s the worst that could

happen…? LAUSD vs. UTLA

19

LAUSD

VAM (AGT) based systems are unreliable & inaccurate

Weaknesses

–Teachers are pressured to teach to the test

–Undue pressure on students

–Perverse Incentive to cheat

20

UTLA’s reflective growth model

“Weaknesses”• Incentives to

–Consider observer recommendations

–Analyze practice–Take extra videos, add to portfolio–Work with colleagues

21

Draft Teacher Evaluation Plan

This is what an evaluation system, based on our

principles,

might look like.

The First Two Years of Probation are also InductionFormally BTSA Now FACT

Need to Engage Principals in the Process

Intervention (Currently PAR)

Professional Growth Process

LAUSD/UTLA PAR

• Principal recommendation and PAR panel report are sent separately to the LAUSD School Board for a decision.

• Structure does not require the CT and the Administrator to work together to provide support to the PT or require the principal to provide convincing evidence to the panel.

28

©CTA2000

Evaluator’sAdministrative

Recommendation

2+2=5

Referred Participating Teacher(Unsatisfactory Evaluation)

EvaluatorConsulting Teachers &

Participating Teachers

Work Together

School Board

Joint PanelDesigns Program &

Matches CT’s & PT’s

VoluntaryParticipating Teachers

Joint PanelProgramReport

Consulting &Participating

TeachersAnecdotalReports

Applying the Law to Practice

Fair and Effective

• “Model” PAR Programs -PAR panel hears CT + Principal- PAR panel decision sent to the Board. “Met” or “Did not Meet” goals.

• The “difference”? – Principal and CT are expected to work together to

support the teacher– Principal accountable – will be presenting to the

panel – Evidence from CT will support or disprove

Principal

Currently in LAUSD

TTA, FACT, PAR, NBCT, PD• This system sorts and separates teachers

• Lock step rigid system

• Reinforces “silo” culture prevents innovative programs

• Inefficient use of resources, duplication of services, not spread throughout LAUSD

31

PAR as an Umbrella

32

New Teacher Induction

Continuing Professional Growth

Self-referral and Early Intervention

Required Participation Unsatisfactory Evaluation

National Board

Certification

PAR for Everyone

• Why that matters– Everyone know about PAR and what it is– Reduces or eliminates the stigma– Serves the spectrum - all teachers

• Beginning teacher

• Continuing teacher

• NBCT’s (this is done in other school districts)

• Receives “Needs Improvement” in some areas

• serious performance issues (currently PAR Step 1=unsatisfactory evaluation = mandatory)

33

34

What do the experts say?

Experts like Charlotte Danielson and Districts that have developed

successful evaluation systems recommend that administrators focus

on pre-tenure teachers and those who require intervention.

Effective teachers benefit most from working with their peers.

35

We are preparing citizens who need to cooperate and

collaborate in an increasingly diverse and rapidly changing

world.

36

The full effectiveness of a teacher must be defined broadly.

37

Presenter Contact Information

Kate Beaudet kbeaudet@aol.comSusie Chow

schow@thesupportnetwork.netJanet Davis jdavisbass@utla.netKevin Schaaf kevin_schaaf@hotmail.com

Questions about Teacher Evaluations

eval@utla.net