educator evaluation policy overview-final
Post on 16-Jul-2015
33 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
“A student assigned to a very good (effective) teacher for a
single school year may gain up to a full year’s worth of
additional academic growth compared to a student
assigned to a very poor (ineffective) teacher. Having a
series of strong or weak teachers in consecutive years
compounds the impact. Give high-need students three
highly effective teachers in a row and they may outperform
students taught by three ineffective teachers in a row by as
much as 50 percentile points.” (p. 9)
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on
differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from The New Teacher Project:
http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf
The Role of the Teacher
in Student Achievement
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 2
Theory of Action
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 3
Improved Evaluation
System
Improved Educator Quality
Improved Student
Outcomes
“In theory, an evaluation system should identify and
measure individual teachers’ strengths and weaknesses
accurately and consistently, so that teachers get the
feedback they need to improve their practice and so
that schools can determine how best to allocate resources
and provide support.”
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D. (2009). The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on
Differences in Teacher Effectiveness. Retrieved from the New Teacher Project: http://tntp.org/publications/view/the-widget-
effect-failure-to-act-on-differences-in-teacher-effectiveness
The Goals of an
Evaluation System
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 4
Teacher evaluation systems have not aided
in developing a highly skilled teacher
workforce.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2011; Toch & Rothman, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2009; Weisberg,
Sexton, Mulhern, & Keeling, 2009
Goal of Teacher
Evaluation Systems
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 5
“Across the nation, states and districts are in
the process of building better teacher
evaluation systems that not only identify
highly effective teachers but also
systematically provide data and feedback
that can be used to improve teacher
practice.”Goe, L., Holdheide, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A Practical Guide to Designing Comprehensive Teacher Evaluation Systems A Tool to
Assist in the Development of Teacher Evaluation Systems. Retrieved from National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality:
http://www.lauragoe.com/LauraGoe/practicalGuideEvalSystems.pdf
Improving Teaching
Practice
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 6
Teacher evaluation systems that are
designed to help teachers improve have
three primary characteristics:
1. The System is Comprehensive and Specific
2. The System includes a Developmental Scale
3. The System Acknowledges and Rewards
Growth
Marzano, R. (2012). The Two Purposes of Teacher Evaluation. Educational Leadership, 70(3), 14-19.
Using Teacher Evaluation to
Improve Teaching Practice
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 7
“Teacher evaluation systems alone are insufficient to
improve instructional quality and increase student
achievement. To be successful, reform efforts need to be
coherent and aligned across the educator career
continuum, beginning with recruitment and preparation, and
extending to support, evaluation, and compensation.”
Angela Minnici
The Mind Shift in Teacher Evaluation
Teacher Evaluation IS
NOT a “Silver Bullet”
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 8
Goal 4
Every School
Has Effective
Teachers and
Leaders
Strategy:
Implement with fidelity the
Mississippi Teacher
Evaluation System (MTES),
the Mississippi Principal
Evaluation System
(MPES), and other
educator evaluation
systems.
MS Board of Education’s
Strategic Plan
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 9
• Mississippi Teacher Evaluation System
• Mississippi Principal Evaluation System
• Mississippi Counselor Appraisal Rubric
• Mississippi Student Services Appraisal
Rubric
• Mississippi Speech-Language Pathologist
Assessment
• Mississippi Librarian Evaluation Instrument
Educator
Evaluations
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 10
Evaluation System
Details
Mississippi Teacher
Evaluation System (MTES)
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 11
M-STAR
Mississippi Teacher
Evaluation System (MTES)
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 12
• Teacher Self-Assessment
• Walk-through Visits
• Formal Observations/Conferences
• Review of Artifacts
• Student Survey (optional)
M-STAR
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 13
1. Teacher Self-Assessment (optional)
• Based on the M-STAR standards
2. Walk-through (informal) Observations
• A minimum of two are required (at least five are
recommended)
• Beyond the two required, the frequency and length
of time of the walk-through visits are at the
discretion of the school district.
The Teacher
Observation Cycle
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 14
3. Formal Observation and Conferences
• Pre-Observation Conference (optional)
Discussion of the lesson to be observed
Discussion of teacher self-assessment
• Formal Observation
Two are recommended
A minimum of one is required
A minimum of 30 minutes
• Formal Post-Observation Conference
Required after each formal observation
Discussion/Feedback
Next Steps/professional growth plan
4. Student Surveys (optional)
The Teacher
Observation Cycle
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 15
• Five domains (weighted equally)
1. Planning
2. Assessment
3. Instruction
4. Learning Environment
5. Professional Responsibilities
• 20 Standards
Rubric Overview
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 16
• Level 4 is the most effective level of teacher performance. Rating at this level
indicates that the teacher’s performance is exemplary; consistently exceeding
expectations. Teachers who receive this rating should receive professional
development and support to continue to grow and develop their skills.
• Level 3 is the expectation for all teachers. Rating at this level indicates the
teacher’s performance consistently meets expectations. Teachers who receive
this rating should receive professional development and support designed to
address the identified area(s) for growth.
• Level 2 indicates either a beginning teacher or a teacher who needs focused
professional development. Rating at this level indicates the teacher is sometimes
meeting expectations, but not doing so consistently. Teachers who receive
this rating should receive professional development and support designed to
address the identified area(s) of challenge.
• Level 1 is the least effective level of teacher performance. Rating at this level
indicates the teacher’s performance is not acceptable. Teachers who receive this
rating rarely meet expectations. Teachers who receive this rating should receive
immediate and comprehensive professional development and support designed to
address the identified area(s) for growth.
Performance Levels
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 20
Description
Level 4
Performance
ratings
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
• Ratings for all twenty standards should be
linked to the evidence collected during the
formal observation(s), walk-through
(informal) observations, artifact review,
and post-observation conference(s).
• Pre-observation conferences and student
surveys are optional methods of evidence
collection.
M-STAR Standards
Ratings
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 21
Individual Growth
Indicator
School-wide
Growth Indicator
Mississippi Teacher
Evaluation System (MTES)
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 23
State Tested Teachers
• M-STAR: 50%
• Individual Growth: 30%
• School-wide Growth: 20%
Tested Teachers (Grades 4-8)
SY 2014-2015
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 24
M-STAR50%
Schoolwide Growth
20%
Individual Growth
30%
State Tested Teachers
M-STAR
Schoolwide Growth
Individual Growth
• Individual Growth Indicator (IGI): Student Growth
Percentile (SGP) metric
• School-wide Growth Indicator (SGI): Reading Growth
Index & Math Growth Index
Non-Tested Teachers and
Specialists
• M-STAR: 50%
• School-wide Growth: 50%
Non-Tested Teachers
SY 2014-2015
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 25
• School-wide Growth Indicator: [Reading Growth Index
+ Math Growth Index] ÷2 = SGI
State Tested Teachers
• M-STAR: 50%
• Individual Growth: 30%
• School-wide: 20%
Non-Tested Teachers and
Specialists
• M-STAR: 50%
• Student
Learning/Support
Objectives: 30%
• School-wide: 20%
SY 2015-2016
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 26
M-STAR50%
Schoolwide Growth
20%
Individual Growth
30%
State Tested Teachers
M-STAR
Schoolwide Growth
Individual Growth
M-STAR50%
Schoolwide Growth
20%
SLOs30%
Non-State Tested Teachers
M-STAR
Schoolwide Growth
SLOs
1 2 3 4
Minimal Basic Proficient Advanced
6.1 Growth occurs when a student:
– Increases an Achievement Level, with additional credit being
given for students who progress two (2) or more levels
– Stays at the same Proficient or Advanced
• Example: Student stays in Proficient from 4th to 5th grade.
– Moves up sufficiently within the lowest two Proficiency Levels
• Example: A student progresses from the bottom half of Basic
to the top half of Basic.
Proficiency Levels
27
Note: Number references (i.e., 6.1) refer to the business rules approved by the
Mississippi State Board of the Education.
Determining School-wide Growth
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
6.4 The lowest two (2) performance/ proficiency levels will be split into half at the mid-point of the range. In the event that the range is an odd number and cannot be split into two (2) equal halves, the lower half of the performance/proficiency level will be one (1) point larger than the upper half.
[See chart posted on SharePoint/Webinar PowerPoints for cut points.]
28
Splitting of the Lowest
Two Proficiency Levels
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
SY 2012 – 2013
Proficiency Level
Proficiency Level to Meet
GrowthExtra Weight in Growth
Advanced Advanced *****
Proficient Proficient Advanced (1.25)
Top Half of Basic Proficient Advanced (1.25)
Bottom Half of BasicTop Half of Basic
or ProficientAdvanced (1.25)
Top Half of MinimalBasic
(top or bottom)
Proficient (1.20)
Advanced (1.25)
Bottom Half of MinimalTop Half of Minimal
or Basic (top or bottom)
Proficient (1.20)
Advanced (1.25)
29
Weighting for School-wide Growth:
SY 2013-2014
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
6.5 Assessments used for calculation of growth will include:
• Grade-level (3-8) assessments in Reading/Language Arts;
• Grade-level (3-8) assessments in Mathematics;
• High School-level assessment in Reading/Language Arts;
• High School-level assessments in Mathematics;
• Alternate Assessment (3-8 and High School) in Reading; and
• Alternate Assessment (3-8 and High School) in Mathematics.
Growth will not be calculated for Science or U.S. History.
30
Subjects &
Assessments
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
6.13 The student must meet FAY for the
current year in order to be included in the
growth calculations but is not required to
meet FAY for the previous year.
31
FAY and Growth
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
6.15 The denominator for the growth
calculation includes any FAY student with
two (2) valid assessment scores (as defined
above [6.14]). The numerator will include
any student included in the denominator
who has demonstrated growth as defined
above, and weighted accordingly.
32
The Calculation
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
Example: 200 students with valid 2012 and 2013 math
scores.
The Calculation
33
# of Students Movement Weight Value
10 Low Minimal → High Minimal 1 10
20 Low Minimal → High Basic 1 20
10 High Minimal → High Minimal 0 0
10 High Minimal → Proficient 1.2 12
20 Low Basic → High Basic 1 20
10 High Basic → Low Basic 0 0
10 High Basic → High Basic 0 0
2 High Basic → Advanced 1.25 2.5
8 Proficient → High Basic 0 0
40 Proficient → Proficient 1 40
20 Proficient → Advanced 1.25 25
20 Advanced → Proficient 0 0
20 Advanced → Advanced 1 20
149.5 = 74.75% 200
74.75% = 74.8 pointsfor Math Growth – All Students component
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality
Overall MTES
Score
Mississippi Teacher
Evaluation System (MTES)
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 34
Tested TeachersSummative Observation Rating
Individual Growth
School-wide Growth
Educator Effectiveness Score
Non-Tested Teachers and SpecialistsSummative Observation Rating
Student Learning/Support Objectives (SLO/SSO)
School-wide Growth
Educator Effectiveness Score
Educator
Effectiveness Score
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 35
MDE Homepage
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 36
Educator Evaluations
Webpage
Educator Evaluation
Resources
• A rating from 1-4 is required for each
standard
• Observation ratings and SLO/SSO overall
rating will be entered into Educator
Licensure Management System (ELMS)
• Educators will be able to view their
evaluation results in ELMS
Submitting Evaluation
Results in 2015-2016
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 38
• Video-based training to support consistent
ratings
• Master-coded by MS educators
• Examples of four performance levels
• Available in the MDE Canvas online learning
management system mde.instructure.com using
the same login and password used for MPES
• Email questions to helpdesk@rcu.msstate.edu
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 41
Calibration Training
• Training on Specialists’ evaluation
instruments
• M-STAR calibration
• M-STAR resources
• Videos showing best practices linked to
the M-STAR standards
MDE Next Steps
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 42
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/educator-evaluations
For more information, contact:
Tarance Hart, Ph.D.(601) 359-3631
m-star@mde.k12.ms.us
SLO/SSO Training ©MDE - Office of Educator Quality 43
MDE Contacts
top related