RIDE Educator Evaluation System Design

ACEES Meeting December 6, 2010

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Updates

• Collaboration with AFT

• Next steps for ACEES

Post-design phase

Working groups wrap up

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Model synthesis

Content review and refinement

based on feedback

RI Model v.1.0 ready for field testing (test

usability)

Model refinement based on testing outcomes and

feedback; training begins

ACEES met its original charge:• Review and provide critical feedback to RIDE and the

working groups on all key evaluation system deliverables• Provide direction to the working groups for overall system

development through the design principles

ACEES will meet next month to review Version .5

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Considerations for final summative ratings

• The Evaluation System Standards require:

4 different summative rating categories (Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective and Ineffective)

Student learning plays a predominant role in reaching a final summative rating

• All components (professional practice, professional responsibilities and student learning) contribute to the final summative rating in an appropriate manner

FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Evaluations will be based on multiple sources of information

Component* Description of Component

Student Learning

Teacher’s contribution to student academic progress, assessed through multiple measures of student academic growth, including student progress toward academic goals and learning standards, and growth on standardized tests (where available)

Professional Practice

Assessment of teacher’s instructional knowledge and skills that impact student learning, as measured by the competencies set forth in the Teacher Professional Practice rubric

Professional Responsibilities

Assessment of teacher’s contribution as a member of the school/learning community, as measured by the elements set forth in the Educator Professional Responsibilities rubric

Individual ratings in each of these components will be combined to produce a final, summative evaluation rating of:

Highly Effective, Effective, Minimally Effective, or Ineffective.

Individual components will be combined using a matrix approach

INTERNAL MATRIX VALUES ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

* For teachers who do not have growth model results, the student learning rating will consist entirely of their goal attainment average.

STUDENT LEARNING*5 4 3 2 1

PP x PR

4 HE E

3 HE E IE

2 E ME IE

1 ME IE IE

Goal Attainment

5 4 3 2 1

Growth

Model (NECAP/PAR

CC)

3 5 5 3

2 4 3 2

1 2 1 1

* For teachers who do not have growth model results, the student learning rating will consist entirely of their goal attainment average.

Professional Practice4 3 2 1

Professional

Responsibilities

3 4 2

2 3

1 3 1 1Sample Sample

Sample

Discussion Questions

• What questions do you have about the matrix approach?

• To what extent does the matrix approach provide a picture to an educator about his/her performance?

• Does the matrix help the educator "know" or have an understanding of their performance?

• What questions or concerns does this raise?

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Type of Assessment

Method of Measurement

1. State Standardized Assessments

• Growth Model: For teachers with the appropriate NECAP data available, contributions to student learning will be assessed using a growth model that measures student academic growth. In this model, a student’s academic growth is determined relative to students with similar previous academic achievement.

2. District Assessments

• Goal Attainment: Teachers who teach in grade and subject areas that have district-wide or common assessments available may be assessed using a goal attainment process that uses those assessments to measure student growth against a set of academic goals and standards.

3. School/Teacher Created/Selected Assessments

• Goal Attainment: All teachers will be assessed using a goal attainment process that measures student learning progress against a set of academic goals and standards. Student progress will be measured using a variety of teacher- and principal- selected assessments.

All teachers will receive a “student learning” rating based on multiple data sources.

Different combinations of data will be available for different teachers. This means that the mix of assessments used may vary from teacher to teacher. However, the “student learning” rating will always be based on more than one data source. Our goal is to create the most complete picture we can of every teacher’s performance.

Overview

• Every teacher evaluated under the RI model will be required to set student learning goals for the students that they teach.

• For teachers without NECAP growth data, these student learning goals will be the primary factor in their student learning rating.

• Goals will be individualized, but schools and districts will work toward consistency in goal setting process.

• Opportunity for districts and schools to indentify common assessments and build consistency in goal setting

process.

Work Session

• With your table group, review the questions on your table.

• Assign a recorder to take notes.

• Record your key ideas on chart paper.

Be prepared to share out with other groups.

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Discussion Questions

• What trends – questions or concerns – are you hearing from the field?

• Which audiences need more information? What content?

• How have you addressed concerns?

• Has it been effective?

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Meeting Agenda

Updates

Final Summative Ratings

Student Learning

Communication

Collective Bargaining Agreements

Next Steps

Next Steps

• Next meeting: January 13, 2011 from 4:30 – 6:30 pm

• Location: PAFF Auditorium

• Review of field testing draft of RI Model

• Review how ACEES feedback has been incorporated

• West Bay and East Bay forums in January

• Check for updates:

www.ride.ri.gov/educatorquality/educatorevaluation