ohio teacher evaluation system

Download Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

Post on 31-Dec-2015




0 download

Embed Size (px)


Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. A Model For Change William A. Bussey Superintendent Mid-East Career and Technology Centers. Ohio TIF Requirement 2012-2013 OTES Implementation. Implementing OTES through the Ohio Appalachian Collaborative (OAC) and Teacher Incentive Funds(TIF ) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


Student Growth Measures

Ohio Teacher Evaluation System

A Model For ChangeWilliam A. Bussey SuperintendentMid-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 ImplementationReview 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 FunkDan CoffmanScott SabinoMichelle Patrick

TODAYS FOCUSOTES Team created in the Spring of 2012

Executive DirectorBuilding DirectorsNew Asst. Director-role is evaluationAsst. Director - role Curriculum and OAC/TIF Teachers OTES PD ImplementationIntroduced 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 Train key people. Success of the project starts with a solid foundation. Help us lead the professional development5Ensure teachers understood:

Framework of the new evaluation systemNew componentsNew tools New processProcess would increase teacher/admin collaboration time

Year long Professional Development Focus Beginning with the end in mind, ensure teachers were exposed to all the components of the model, understood the standards, where they 6Initial OTES Staff trainingTeacher Performance OTES Model7 Teaching StandardsPlaced in the performance rubricTeacher Evidence Calibration of a standard to a teaching videoCompleted self-assessment

Student Growth Student Learning Objectives

Staff PDBig Picture so PD was on both sides of the evaluation systemActivity achievement vs progress7November PDMini Sessions on Formative Instructional Practices, Literacy w/CC Anchor Standards in Reading and Writing, BFK and Value Added, Teacher Evidence

February PDState training manual on Student Growth Measures

Quarterly Meetings used as check points

Conversations with evaluator

Staff PD cont.The Process-Learning It TogetherPre-Pre Observation ConferenceMet 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 StandardsSelf-directedStatement 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 TogetherTeacher Performance Evaluation Rubric (TPER)- (See example)Evaluation begins with Proficient (Rock solid teaching)Video examples- see NIET Training ModulesExamine key words and phrases embedded in rubric at each level (Proficient, Accomplished and Developing)

Pre-Conference Teachers complete/submit responses using ohiotpes.comFace-to-face

Observation 30 minutesScript the lesson!

The Process- Learning It TogetherPost-ConferenceFollows each observationSpecific questions relating to the lesson and the instructorRelate to TPERArea for Reinforcement/Refinement

Classroom Walkthroughs (2-5 per teacher)Shared with the teacherOpportunity for feedbackUsed paper form and ohiotpes.comThe more often, the better!

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

The Process-Learning It TogetherRound 1Pre-Conference Observation Walkthrough(s)Post-Conference

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

Summative Performance Rating Conference

Student Growth MeasuresUse 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 measuresConsiderations for Building a Strong, Reliable Measures of Student GrowthTeachers 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 usedWhole groupTiered/grouped targetsIndividual TargetsStudent Learning Objectives17Whole group target-one target for all students in SLOAll students will score a 75% or better on the post assessment

Tiered/grouped target-range of targets for groups of studentsPre-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 scoreUsing a formula such as (100 pretest)/2 + the pretest = growth target


Teacher Name: Formula MethodSchool: Mid East CTC - Zanesville Campus SLO:Assessment Name:Student NameBaselineGrowth TargetFinal ScoreMet Target1286480Yes2206048No3447276Yes4286476Yes512566487484Yes7206044No8286452No9407088Yes10326684Yes11286460No6 of the 10 students met/exceed their growth target

60%Closing the gap by 50%19Descriptive RatingDescriptive RatingPercentage Exceed/MetNumerical RatingTieredFormulaWhole GroupMost Effective90-100%510%20%10%Above Average80-89%430%20%36%Average70-79%320%09%Approaching Average60-69%220%6%9%Least Effective59 or below120%54%36%

Evaluation Matrix

Class of 2013ResultsFall 2011469 students were tested81% (379) students earned a bronze or better

Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online

Spring 201290 students were tested71% (64) students earned a bronze or better

2011-2012 Level I

2012-2013 Level II40% Bronze 50% Silver5% Gold5%Not yet

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

NCRC District Results - 2013

Occupational Profiles70% Met or Exceeded Occupational Profile! 70% of the students left with a NCRC aligned to their program.49% of the class of 2014 has a NCRC aligned to their program. Goal is 75%24 Class of 2014 ResultsFall 2012467 students were tested86% students earned a bronze or better

Intervention Provided through KeyTrain Online

Spring 201360 students were tested55% students earned a bronze or better

252012-2013 Level I

2013-2014 Level II37% Bronze 54% Silver 4% Gold 5%Not yet

NCRC District Results - 2014

ACT Quality Core District ResultsContent Area2012-20132011-20122010 -2011English151150146Math143143.25141.75Science147.5145143.50

Zanesville CampusSubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark201320122011Biology156149145.2142.5Chemistry157147144.9144Algebra I152142142.1142.9Geometry152144142.9140.3Algebra II149143144.5142.4PreCalculus145143144.5141.2English 10147151147.8144.8English 11152149150.2147.3Physics150US History150English 9154English 12153Buffalo CampusSubjectCollege Readiness Benchmark201320122011Biology156147145.4144.2Chemistry157145.4143.5Algebra I152141142.6142.4Geometry152144143.2141.6Algebra II149144143.9142.8PreCalculus145English 10147154150.9144.4English 11152151151.9146.3Physics150US History150English 9154English 12153

33Teacher CategoryValue AddedVendor AssessmentsLEA MeasuresTotalSLO/OtherShared AttributionA (Value Added)30%10%10%50%B (vendor Assessments10%30%10%50%C (LEA Measures)40%10%50%Example of 2012-2013 SGMData Analysis and Assessment Literacy

Data Analysis and Setting Growth TargetsData driven decisions What data?Engage in transparent conversations around student growth

Outliers, class size, averages, rangesIdentify trends, patterns, expectations for masteryGather other available dataZoom-in and identify similarities and differences in students

Key TakeawaysBuild staff Assessment Literacy

Priority Standards

Appropriate assessments

Quality Assessment Design

Assessment Blue Print reflects instruction

Instructional Tasks move students to meet standardsStandards on CT competency lists-Range of questions-scaffolding and stretch, rigor alignment, well written questions, does the question ask what I want students to know

36Significance of the SLO Pilot WorkConversations 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 flexibilityChange as we negotiate our contract

Further development by the district SLO Evaluation Committee for SLO guidelines

District Policy - ProcessREFLECTIONS. . . 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!



View more >