March 13, 2012

Effective Evaluation SystemsClear, rigorous expectations

Evaluations should be based on clear standards of instructional excellence that prioritize student learning

Multiple measuresEvaluations should consider multiple measures

of performance, primarily the teachers’ and administrators’ impact on student academic growth

Effective Evaluation SystemsMultiple Ratings

Evaluations should employ four to five rating levels to describe differences in teacher effectiveness

Regular FeedbackEvaluations should encourage frequent

observations and constructive critical feedbackSignificance

Evaluation outcomes must matter, evaluation data should be a major factor in employment of teachers

Effective Evaluation SystemsShould provide teachers and principals with

feedback that helps them grow

Should give schools the information needed to build strong instructional programs

Should hold teachers and leaders accountable for keeping students on track to graduate college ready or ready for work

High Quality Matters

Having a high quality teachers and principals can substantially offset or even eliminate the disadvantage of low socio-economic background

The effect of increases in teacher quality swamps the impact of any other educational investment such as reductions in class size

Guiding PrincipalsAll students can master academically rigorous

material

The primary responsibility of teachers and principals is to ensure that students learn

Teachers and principals contribute to student learning in ways that can be observed and measured

Evaluation should form the basis of teacher and principal development

Guiding Principals

The principal’s most important job is helping teachers become and stay highly effective

Evaluations should be considered in the hiring, tenure, compensation, and retention

Performance Education Advisory Council (PEAC)A multi-stakeholder workgroup that has

representatives from unions, state department, regional centers and local school districts

Instituted in 2010

Charge was to provide framework for teacher and principal evaluation

Agreement February 6, 2012

Weights in Evaluation ModelsTEACHERS PRINCIPALS

Multiple student learning measures 45% Multiple student learning measures

Whole-school student learning indicators or student feedback

5% Teacher effectiveness outcomes

Observations of teacher performance and practice

40% Observations of principal performance and practice

Peer or parent feedback surveys 10% Staff, community, and/or student feedback surveys

CT Leadership Standards – 10-5-11 Draft 1: Vision, Mission, and Goals: Education leaders ensure the success and

achievement of all students by guiding the development and implementation of a shared vision of learning, a strong organizational mission, and high expectations for student performance.

 2: Teaching and Learning: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by monitoring and continuously improving teaching and learning.

 3: Organizational Systems and Safety: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by managing organizational systems and resources for a safe, high-performing learning environment.

 4: Families and Stakeholders: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by collaborating with families and stakeholders to respond to diverse community interests and needs and to mobilize community resources.

 5: Ethics and Integrity: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students by being ethical and acting with integrity.

6: The Education System: Education leaders ensure the success and achievement of all students and advocate for their students, faculty and staff needs by influencing systems of political, social, economic, legal, and cultural contexts affecting education.

Student Learning (45%)Half of the student learning element

based on the state testRecommended Additional Guidelines:• For state test portion of student learning, weight growth

measures more heavily than attainment• For locally developed measures, establish approved set of options

for districts to choose

Recommended Guidance from State:• Provide guidance to districts to include non-test measures of

student graduation or grade progression for secondary schools not demonstrating high graduation rates

• Provide guidance around using local measures to extend grade levels and subjects covered as possible

Other Guidelines• State model developed as default, with rigorous

process for local opt-out• Will provide # and duration of formal vs. informal

observations• Pre and post conference specifics• Detailed observation rubrics

• 4 rating levels - exemplary, proficient, developing and below standard

• High Quality observations of performance and practice• Rated against a standards-based rubric• Useful and timely feedback• Evaluators must receive training and demonstrate

proficiency on how to provide quality feedback

Additional ComponentsEvaluations that provide useful feedback and

results linked to professional development High quality professional development

Multiple student learning indicatorsFair, valid, reliable and usefulSafeguards for student, teacher and school

characteristics, attendance and mobilityGuidelines for parent, peer, community or staff

surveysA statewide committee (like PEAC) that meets

regularly to provide implementation guidance Pilot process or staggered implementation

January February March April May June July

Draft Timeline: Winter-Summer 2012

14

State model adopted by state board 

Working groups begin developing state models and implementation plans  

Districts apply for voluntary pilot program 

State board adopts core guidelines for district systems

Training for all evaluators

Fall 2012 Winter 2012-13 Spring 2013 Summer 2013 Fall 2013

Draft Timeline: Fall 2012-Fall 2013

15

Additional state training for evaluators 

February - Working groups convene and begin developing state models & implementation plans through June 

Districts plans are submitted to CSDE for review/approval 

Voluntary pilot program begins

Full-scale statewide implementation starts

Districts not participating in pilot plan and develop local systems 

State Funding for Evaluation and Training

2.5 million to start new teacher and principal evaluations

5 million to open a principal’s academy at the University of CT school of education

Norwalk Public Schools Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development PlanDeveloped in collaboration with

administrators and teachers

Based on work of Charlotte Danielson and the Connecticut’s Common Core of Teaching (1999)

Plan is to be reviewed annually

Training for evaluators and teachers

Norwalk Public Schools Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development PlanTeacher practice

Must know their contentOrganize the learning environment in a manner

which demonstrates respect of self and othersStudents actively engaged in the process of

learningUnderstand and use good pedagogical

knowledgeWork on their own professional developmentParticipate in developing a culture of trust,

respect and collaboration

Administrators’ Responsibilities in the Evaluation ProcessProvide strong instructional leadershipFoster and support an environment that

encourages outstanding performanceEngage and encourage teachers to examine

their workProvide resources to enable teachers to

master their craftBuild and nurture a culture of trust, respect

and collaborative dialogue

Danielson ModelEach domain contains a series of components and

elements that provide a basis for focused observation and assessment

I. Planning and Preparation

II. The Classroom Environment

III. Instruction

IV. Professional Responsibilities

Levels of PerformanceUnsatisfactory

Teacher does not yet appear to understand the concepts of the underlying the component

BasicUnderstands the concepts underlying

component, but implementation is sporadicProficient

Clearly understands the concepts underlying the concepts and implements them well

DistinguishedMaster teacher and makes a contribution to

the field both inside an d outside of the school

Observation ProcessSuccess of each component is dependent on a common

understanding and language about good instructional practice

Effective observation and evaluation results in meaningful professional development leading to improved student achievement

Minimum of 25 minutes and occur approximately 2 days after the pre-observation conference

Pre-observation conference determines the focus of the observation

Post observation conference occurs no more than 5 days after the observation

Written observation be completed within 20 days of the observation

Schedule of Formal ObservationsNon-Tenured Teacher

3 formal observations completed by November 1, December 15 and February 15

Tenured Teacher2 formal observations completed by February 1

and May firstEvaluators are encouraged to drop in

classroom routinely to observe teachers’ work. 3 minimum drop-in visits each semester. Reference of the informal drop-ins in the evaluation must be discussed with the teacher.

Examples of Documentation UsedWritten formal observationsLesson plansInstructional unitsEvidence of student learning through student

workMeasures of academic performanceTeacher’s professional activities in the schoolExamples of communication with parentsTeacher’s written self assessment

Differentiated EvaluationYear Non-Tenured Tenured

1 Appraisal Appraisal

2 Appraisal* (if distinguished in Year 1 then Directed Professional Growth

Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth

3 Directed Professional Growth

Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth

4 Directed Professional Growth

Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth

5 Tenured – Directed or Self-directed Professional Growth

Appraisal (Repeat of cycle)

6 Appraisal as a tenured teacher

Self Directed Professional GrowthTeachers who have distinguished themselves

by outstanding professional performance and a significant record of effecting student growth

Create a model of teacher autonomy where teaches monitor, analyze, and evaluate their own classroom and professional practice

Take responsibility in their own professional growth

DistinguishedAssessed in 2 of the 4 domains as distinguished

No component on Domain 2 (The Classroom Environment) and Domain 3 (Instruction) may be assessed below proficient

No more than one component in Domains 1 (Planning and Preparation) and 4 (Professional Responsibilities) may be assessed at the Basic level

Parameters of Self-Directed Professional Growth ActivitiesProjects submitted are substantive and

comprehensivePlans can be multi-year, but require annual

analysis and assessmentPlans must tie to standardsInnovation and creativity is supportedExamples – instructional units, curriculum

development, action research, case studies, study groups, immersion in content area, peer coaching

Focused AssistanceAssistance in a specific area of performance

Evaluator meets with the teacher to identify the specific area of improvement

HR Officer and NFT President are informed about the focused assistance

Evaluator develop a plan to improve performance Cycle of classroom observations Resources to be used Meetings to review progress Time frame for cycle

Assistance from a Collegial Collaborator can support the teacher

At the end of the assistance – teacher moves back to regular cycle of placed on intervention

Intervention ProcessA tenured teacher who is evaluated as “Basic”

in 2 or more domains in the annual assessment, and intensive process of intervention is in place

A teacher whose performance during the school year has been documented to be “Basic” in 2 or more domains (After focused assistance)

Superintendent review

Intervention ProcessInform the Human Resource (HR) Officer and Assistant

SuperintendentMeeting with central office staff, teacher and NFT

representationEvaluator develops a specific plan of improvement

Minimum of 2 observations (one each semester)Unannounced and announced observationsCompletion of self reflection formMonthly meetings with evaluator, HR Officer, central

office staff, teacher and representatives from NFT Identify a distinguished teacher who can be a resourceConclusion of a reasonable period (6 months to a year, a

termination of progress is made and a recommendation is made to go back to the regular cycle or termination

NPS Administrator Leader Evaluation and Professional Growth PlanDeveloped in collaboration with administrators and

executive staffFocused on student learningDescribes the process and goal of school leaders’

evaluation processEmphasis on self-reflection and best practices and

action toward specific goalsAdministrators are central to developing high

expectations of success and excellenceFocus on Instructional LeadershipBased on Connecticut Standards for School Leaders

and Administrators’ Evaluation ModelAnnual evaluation

Connecticut Standards for School LeadersI. The educated process-develop a common visionII. The learning process-knowledge of current researchIII. The teaching process-understands teaching and learningIV. Diverse perspectives-understands the role of education in a diverse

communityV. School goals-engages in establishment of school goalsVI. School culture-fosters collaborationVII. Student standards and assessment-establishes rigorous standardsVIII. School improvement-works to improve the quality of teaching and

learningIX. Professional development-professional development based on

school needsX. Integration of staff evaluation, professional development and school

improvement-integrates human capital strategies to improve teaching and learning

XI. Organization, resources and school policies-works with staff to use resources effectively

XII. School-community relations-collaborates with staff and community

Relationship between Connecticut Standards and Evaluation Growth ModelConnecticut Standards for

School LeadersAdministrator’s Evaluation Model

I. Educated Person Professional Community Building

II. The Learning Process Capacity BuildingSupervision and Evaluation

III. The Teaching Process Supervision and Evaluation

IV. Diverse Perspectives Other Accomplishments

V. School/Program Goals Development of School/Program Growth Plans

VI. School Culture Professional Community Building

VII. School Improvement Student/Staff/Family & Community Capacity Building

VIII. Professional Development Staff Capacity Building

Relationship between Connecticut Standards and Evaluation Growth Model Connecticut Standards for

School LeadersAdministrators’ Evaluation Model

IX. Professional Development Staff Capacity Building

X. Integration of Staff Evaluation, Professional Development, and School Improvement

Student/Staff/Family & Community Capacity Building

XI. Organization, Resources and School Policies

Policy and Management

XII. School-Community Relations

Community Capacity Building

Connecticut Code of Professional Responsibility for School Administrators

Responsibility to student

Responsibility to the student’s family

Responsibility to the community

Responsibility to the profession and staff

Components of SystemSchool/Program Growth PlansAdministrator Leader Induction

Responsibility of HR Officer Mentoring Training

Professional Growth and DevelopmentAccountability Process

Meet the Standards for School Leaders Meeting the CT Code of Professional Responsibility for

School Administrators Meeting performance requirements related to job

description Adhering to district policies Positively affecting student learning through development of

school improvement plan Reflecting on Student Improvement Goals

The Purpose of Evaluation

Assess the administrator competencies

Identify the administrator’s strengths

Identify areas in need of growth or improvement

Assess the administrator's efforts to grow professionally

Help determine contract renewal or granting of tenure

Data to be Used in the Summative Evaluation Document

Student work

Surveys

Student assessment results

Program/materials that support student learning

School observations and visits

Overview of AccountabilityObservations and visits at any timeConferences – minimum of 2

10-month Administrators

Conference to assess proficiencies and identify areas of strength and areas for growth

By October 15

Complete Self Evaluation By June 1

Summative Conference held By June 30

Completion of Summative Evaluation By July 15

Overview of Accountability

12 – Month Administrator

Conference to assess proficiencies and identify areas of strength and areas for growth

By October 15

Complete Self Evaluation By May 15

Summative Conference held Prior to June 30

Completion of Summative Evaluation By June 30

Corrective Assistance Program for Tenured Administrators

Evaluator identifies specific behaviors, benchmarks and a timeline for improvementSupervisor notifies the administrator and NASA in

writing Development of Action Plan

Lists specific concerns, expectations that will be used for an improvement timeline (one year)

List of resources and supports and schedule of conferences

Evaluation to document progress or lack of process Recommendation to go back to the evaluation cycle or

dismissalAdministrator has appeal rights to the

superintendent

Montgomery County Teacher Professional Growth SystemSix clear standards based on the NBPSTTraining for evaluator and teachers that created

a common language for what good teaching is aboutSkillful TeacherObservation and Analysis of Teaching

A professional growth cycle that integrates formal evaluation and a multi-year process of continued professional growth

Formal evaluation with a narrative assessments that provide qualitative feedback

Teacher Professional Growth System

Non-Tenured teachersAnnual Formal Evaluation

Tenured TeachersMulti-year evaluation cycleProfessional Development Plan

Special Evaluation at any time

Teacher Professional Growth SystemObservation – minimum 30 minutesAt least one formal must be announced and a

pre-observation conference is requiredMost observation conference held within 3

days of the formal observationPost observation report is completed after

the post observation conferenceRatings – Meets standard and Below standard

Teacher Professional Growth SystemProbationary Teachers with a Consulting Teacher (CT)

Probationary teachers with experience

Tenured Teachers in regular cycle

Tenured Teachers with a Consulting Teacher

At least 2 formal observations

At least 2 formal observations

At least 2 formal observations, 3 if teacher is rated below standard

At least 1 formal observation by principal, immediate supervisor or AP

One observation announced, at least one each semester

One observation announced, at least one each semester

One observation announced, at least one each semester

One observation announced, at least one each semester

CT complete a minimum of two additional formal observations

Principal or AP must observe at least half of the observations

CT completes a minimum of 3 formal observations

Other qualified observer complete one observation

Sources of Data Samples of student work, tests, assignments and feedbackUnit plansCommunication to parentsPublicationsProfessional Development PlansStudent results

Local and state examsAttendance discipline referralsAP or SAT testsStudent and parent surveys

Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)

A Peer Assistance and Review Program that has consulting teachers who provide instructional support to novice teachers and veteran teachers who are performing below standard

PAR Panel comprised of 6 principals and 6 teachers

Nominated by unions and appointed by the superintendent

Reviews all cases and makes recommendations about returning to PGS or termination

Montgomery County A & S Professional Growth System

Six clear standards based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards

Support for novice administrators and underperforming administrators

Training for evaluator and teachers that created a common language for what good teaching is about

A professional growth cycle that integrates formal evaluation and a multi-year process of continued professional growth

Formal evaluation with a narrative assessments that provide qualitative feedback

Evaluation Process

First and second year as a principalFirst year after a change of levelFifth yearNinth yearEvery fifth and ninth yearAnnual Review process in non-evaluation

yearSpecial evaluation at anytime

Required Data Sources

Formal observationsSchool improvement process planQuarterly school improvement process

summariesProfessional development planState and local student assessmentsStaff profile including turnover, attendance

and experienceMonthly monitoring calendar

Examples of Observations for Administrators

Staff meetingsStudent meetingsParent and community meetingsSchool Improvement meetingsStaff evaluation conferencesParent conferencesPresentations Workgroups

Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)

A Peer Assistance and Review Program that has consulting teachers who provide instructional support to novice teachers and veteran teachers who are performing below standard

PAR Panel comprised of 6 principals and 6 executive staff

Nominated by unions and appointed by the superintendent

Reviews all cases and makes recommendations about returning to PGS or termination