new teacher orientation: alliance teacher effectiveness 2012

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