Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

                                             A Model For ChangeWilliam A. Bussey

Superintendent

Mid-East Career and Technology Centers

Implementing OTES through the Ohio Appalachian Collaborative (OAC) and Teacher Incentive Funds(TIF)

All teachers will be evaluated using the OTES Model-Teacher Performance Standards

All administrators are credentialed evaluators

All teachers will develop and monitor one Student Learning Objective

Ohio TIF Requirement 2012-2013 OTES Implementation

Review the processes, results, and challenges with both the performance rating and student growth measures

Reflect on the good, the bad, and the ugly

Review any changes as we transition to the "authentic" evaluation tool for teachers this coming school year

I have brought with me the experts!◦ Barb Funk◦ Dan Coffman◦ Scott Sabino◦ Michelle Patrick

TODAY’S FOCUS

OTES Team created in the Spring of 2012

◦ Executive Director◦ Building Directors◦ New Asst. Director-role is evaluation◦ Asst. Director - role Curriculum and OAC/TIF ◦ Teachers

OTES PD Implementation

Introduced the OTES framework to all leadership teams

District Transformation TeamStrategic Compensation TeamOTES TeamFormative Instructional Practices TeamAssessment/Literacy Tech TeamHSTW Site Coordinators

Train key people within the district

Success starts with a solid foundation

Teacher led PD would increase staff buy-in

OTES Leadership Training

◦ Ensure teachers understood:

Framework of the new evaluation system New components New tools New process Process would increase teacher/admin collaboration

time

Year long Professional Development Focus

Initial OTES Staff training◦ Teacher Performance – OTES Model

7 Teaching Standards Placed in the performance rubric Teacher Evidence Calibration of a standard to a teaching video Completed self-assessment

◦ Student Growth – Student Learning Objectives

Staff PD

o November PD• Mini Sessions on Formative Instructional Practices,

Literacy w/CC Anchor Standards in Reading and Writing, BFK and Value Added, Teacher Evidence

o February PD• State training manual on Student Growth Measures

o Quarterly Meetings used as check points

o Conversations with evaluator

Staff PD cont.

The Process-Learning It Together

Pre-Pre Observation Conference◦ Met with teachers (last two week of October) to review the process timeline and

elements (paperwork and documentation) and answer questions. ◦ Follow-up to In-service Day.

Self-Assessment Tool (Optional in the process, but discovered to be a MUST DO!)

Professional Growth Plan (See example)◦ Teacher Performance Goal (Goal 2)- Influenced by Self-Assessment Tool and Ohio

Teaching Standards◦ Self-directed◦ Statement of the goal and how it will be measured

◦ Student Achievement Goal (Goal 1)- Influenced by SLO (Use standard from pre-assessment used to develop SLO)

◦ Specific standard and how it will be measured

The Process- Learning It Together

Teacher Performance Evaluation Rubric (TPER)- (See example)◦ Evaluation begins with Proficient (“Rock solid teaching”)◦ Video examples- see NIET Training Modules◦ Examine key words and phrases embedded in rubric at each

level (Proficient, Accomplished and Developing)

Pre-Conference ◦ Teachers complete/submit responses using ohiotpes.com◦ Face-to-face

Observation ◦ 30 minutes◦ Script the lesson!

The Process- Learning It Together

Post-Conference◦ Follows each observation◦ Specific questions relating to the lesson and the instructor◦ Relate to TPER◦ Area for Reinforcement/Refinement

Classroom Walkthroughs (2-5 per teacher)◦ Shared with the teacher◦ Opportunity for feedback◦ Used paper form and ohiotpes.com◦ The more often, the better!

Set schedule early and put it on the teachers. It’s the teachers’ evaluation and their responsibility to provide evidence/documentation relating to the TPER.

The Process-Learning It Together

Round 1Pre-Conference Observation Walkthrough(s)Post-Conference

Round 2Pre-Conference Observation Walkthrough(s)Post-Conference

Summative Performance Rating Conference

Student Growth Measures

Use measures of student growth effectivelyin a high quality evaluation system

Make informed decisions on the right measures

Make informed decisions about the appropriate weight of measures

Increase reliability and validity of selected measures

Considerations for Building a Strong, Reliable Measures of Student Growth

Teachers completed the development, implementation and scoring process

SLO timeline with specific due dates, calendar with expectations

Teachers created their SLO and chose their growth target

Implemented the SLO

Calculated the results

Three main types of targets used◦ Whole group◦ Tiered/grouped targets◦ Individual Targets

Student Learning Objectives

Whole group target-one target for all students in SLO◦ All students will score a 75% or better on the post assessment

Tiered/grouped target-range of targets for groups of students◦ Pre-assessment scores between 0 – 25 would be expected to

score between 25-50 on post assessment

Individual target-each student in the SLO receives a target score◦ Using a formula such as (100 – pretest)/2 + the pretest =

growth target

TYPES OF TARGETS

Teacher Name: Formula Method School: Mid East CTC - Zanesville Campus

SLO: Assessment Name:

Student NameBaseline

Growth Target Final Score Met Target

1 28 64 80 Yes

2 20 60 48 No

3 44 72 76 Yes

4 28 64 76 Yes

5 12 56  

6 48 74 84 Yes

7 20 60 44 No

8 28 64 52 No

9 40 70 88 Yes

10 32 66 84 Yes

11 28 64 60 No

6 of the 10 students met/exceed their growth target

60%

Descriptive RatingDescriptive Rating

Percentage Exceed/Met

Numerical Rating

TieredFormula

Whole Group

Most Effective

90-100% 5 10% 20% 10%

Above Average

80-89% 4 30% 20% 36%

Average70-79% 3 20% 0 9%

Approaching Average 60-69% 2 20% 6% 9%

Least Effective

59 or below 1 20% 54% 36%

Evaluation Matrix

 

Stud

ent G

row

th

Teacher Performance

Accomplished Rating Proficient Rating Developing Rating Ineffective Rating

Abov

e

5 Accomplished  Accomplished  Proficient  Developing 

Expe

cted

2, 3

, 4

Proficient  Proficient  Developing  Developing 

Belo

w

1 Developing  Developing  Ineffective  Ineffective 

Class of 2013Results

Fall 2011 469 students were tested 81% (379) students earned a bronze or better

Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online

Spring 2012 90 students were tested 71% (64) students earned a bronze or better

2011-2012 Level I2012-2013 Level II

40% Bronze 50% Silver5% Gold5% Not yet

27% Bronze 64% Silver 7% Gold 2%Not yet

NCRC District Results - 2013

 

Occupational Profiles

14 Programs Bronze

1 Program Gold

11 Programs Silver

70% Met or Exceeded

Occupational Profile!

Class of 2014 Results

Fall 2012 467 students were tested 86% students earned a bronze or better

Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online

Spring 2013 60 students were tested 55% students earned a bronze or better

2012-2013 Level I2013-2014 Level II

37% Bronze 54% Silver 4% Gold 5%Not yet

NCRC District Results - 2014

ACT Quality Core District Results

Content Area

2012-2013 2011-2012

2010 -2011

English 151 150 146

Math 143 143.25 141.75

Science 147.5 145 143.50

Zanesville Campus

SubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark 2013 2012 2011

Biology 156 149 145.2 142.5

Chemistry 157 147 144.9 144

Algebra I 152 142 142.1 142.9

Geometry 152 144 142.9 140.3

Algebra II 149 143 144.5 142.4

PreCalculus 145 143 144.5 141.2

English 10 147 151 147.8 144.8

English 11 152 149 150.2 147.3

Physics 150

US History 150

English 9 154

English 12 153

Buffalo Campus

SubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark 2013 2012 2011

Biology 156 147 145.4 144.2

Chemistry 157 145.4 143.5

Algebra I 152 141 142.6 142.4

Geometry 152 144 143.2 141.6

Algebra II 149 144 143.9 142.8

PreCalculus 145

English 10 147 154 150.9 144.4

English 11 152 151 151.9 146.3

Physics 150

US History 150

English 9 154

English 12 153

Teacher Category

Value Adde

d

Vendor Assessment

s

LEA Measures Total

SLO/Other

Shared Attribution

A (Value Added)

30% 10% 10% 50%

B (vendor Assessments

10% 30% 10% 50%

C (LEA Measures)

40% 10% 50%

Example of 2012-2013 SGM

Data Analysis and Assessment Literacy

Data Analysis and Setting Growth Targets◦ Data driven decisions – What data?◦ Engage in transparent conversations around

student growth

Outliers, class size, averages, ranges Identify trends, patterns, expectations for mastery Gather other available data Zoom-in and identify similarities and differences in

students

Key Takeaways

Build staff Assessment Literacy

Priority Standards

Appropriate assessments

Quality Assessment Design

Assessment Blue Print reflects instruction

Instructional Tasks move students to meet standards

Significance of the SLO Pilot Work

Conversations and Collaboration

Greater focus on Student Learning

Deeper reflection of the:◦ teaching and learning process ◦ accountability of growth for all students ◦ role student growth plays in determining Educator

Effectiveness

Policy developed utilizing the template provided by ODE ◦ Simple to allow for flexibility◦ Change as we negotiate our contract

Further development by the district SLO Evaluation Committee for SLO guidelines

District Policy - Process

REFLECTIONS. . . Let the “real” thinking take place… • What made us breathe a sigh of relief when it

was over

• What went well/positive elements • Yes, some things were quite positive!

• Suggestions/ways to use our internal feedback and insight to feed forward

REFLECTIONS – breathing a sigh of relief because…

Roller Coaster of Emotions

WHEW that took some time!◦ 5 hours per teacher per observation? *gulp*◦ What do I give up?◦ Walkthroughs?

Technology◦ eTPES downfalls

Other evaluations? Walkthrough data?

◦ Support for all levels of learners

REFLECTIONS – What Went Well Roller Coaster of Emotions

Process was overall positive◦ From Self-Assessments Reflection◦ Consensus: “It’s not so bad”!!

Technology based

Trial year! WOOHOOO

Focused purpose and common dialogue◦ Holistic ◦ Rubric ◦ Criteria not a checklist

Collaboration◦ Administrator with associate school principals◦ Administrators with administrator◦ Administrators with teachers◦ Teachers with teachers◦ Utopia!

REFLECTIONS – ways to improve

Self-Assessment – everyone Walkthrough data – form that collects data we need?

◦ Experimenting with Google Forms?◦ Use to see trends

Non-instructional staff evaluations◦ OSCES, ASCA, and OTES◦ Input from staff

Opportunities for more alignment◦ for professionals to align all goals; IPDP, OTES/OPES, Resident

Educator, ◦ to look for trends and align with PD, ◦ to group professionals with aligned goals as they work together to

improve their practice, ◦ to align ourselves as evaluators - do we truly calibrate?  Can we

better align (with each other) by discussing our ratings and why, etc., etc., etc.