team evaluation model overviewteam evaluation model overview zachary rossley, deputy assistant...
TRANSCRIPT
TEAM Evaluation Model OverviewTEAM Evaluation Model Overview
Zachary Rossley, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Data and Zachary Rossley, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Data and Research Division, Tennessee Department of EducationResearch Division, Tennessee Department of Education
Evaluation closely links with Common Core
2
3
We aim to be the fastest improving state in the country by 2015
We will measure our success by our progress on NAEP, ACT, and PARCC
4
And we will continue to close achievement gaps as we grow overall achievement
and
Growth for all students, every year
Faster growth for those students who are furthest behind
Tennessee’s students are struggling to compete with their peers in other states
2011 NAEP data 5
Subject/ Grade Level
Tennessee’s % Proficient/Advanced
National Rank
Southeast Rank
4th Grade Reading 26% 41st 8th of 10
4th Grade Math 30% 46th 8th of 10
8th Grade Reading 27% 41st 7th of 10
8th Grade Math 24% 45th 7th of 10
However, we have seen continued growth on TCAP 3-8 Achievement results over the past
two years
6
Origin of the TEAM rubric
TDOE partnered with NIET to adapt their rubric for use in Tennessee.
The NIET rubric is based on research and best practices from multiple sources. In addition to the research from Charlotte Danielson and other prominent researchers, NIET reviewed instructional guidelines and standards developed by numerous national and state teacher standards organizations. From this information they developed a comprehensive set of standards for teacher evaluation and development.
The work reviewed included guidelines and standards developed by:
• The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
• The National Board for Professional Teacher Standards • Massachusetts' Principles for Effective Teaching • California's Standards for the Teaching Profession • Connecticut's Beginning Educator Support Program, and • The New Teacher Center's Developmental Continuum of Teacher
Abilities.
7
Components of Evaluation: Tested Grades and Subjects
Qualitative includes: Observations in
planning, environment, and instruction
Professionalism rubric
Quantitative includes: Growth measure
TVAAS or comparable measure
Achievement measure Goal set by teacher and
evaluator
8
Components of Evaluation:Non-tested Grades and Subjects
Qualitative includes: Observations in
planning, environment, and instruction
Professionalism rubric
Quantitative includes: Growth measure
TVAAS or comparable measure
Achievement measure
Goal set by teacher and evaluator
9
Rubrics
General Educator
Library Media Specialist
School Services Personnel School Audiologist PreK-12
School Counselor PreK-12
School Social Worker PreK-12
School Psychologist PreK-12
Speech/Language Therapist
May be used at the discretion of LEA for other educators who do not have
direct instructional contact with students, such as instructional coaches who
work with teachers.
10
Domains
11
Planning Domain
12
Environment Domain
13
Instruction Domain
14
Professionalism Domain
15
Evaluation Process
Initial Coaching Conversation• Required for teachers who received an overall effectiveness
rating or individual growth score of 1 in the previous year
Pre-Conference
Classroom Visit
Post-Conference
Professionalism Scoring
Summative Conference
16
Repeat as needed depending on number of required observations
Suggested Pacing
17
Observation Guidance Documents
Educator groups convened by TDOE to provide additional information for evaluators to inform evaluation using SSP rubric
Observation guidance documents were created for the following educator groups:
18
GENERAL EDUCATOR RUBRIC SCHOOL SERVICES PERSONNEL RUBRIC
Early Childhood School Counselors
Special Education School Audiologists
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Speech/Language Pathologists (SLP)
Online Teaching School Social Workers (SSW)
Alternative Educators Vision Specialists
School Psychologists
Growth Measure Overview
State law currently requires value-added (or a comparable growth measure) to count as 35% of the total evaluation score.
For teachers in state tested grades/subjects, the 35% growth component is their individual TVAAS score.
For fine arts teachers in districts that have opted-in to this model, this will be their portfolio score.
For teachers without an individual growth measure, this will be a school-, district-, or state-wide TVAAS score that comprises 25%.
Additional measures for non-tested grades/subjects are in development.
19
15% Achievement Measure
The 15% measure based on a yearly goal set by the educator and his/her evaluator that is measured by current year data.
To make the 15% meaningful, the evaluator and educator work together to identify a measure.
Evaluator’s decision takes precedent over the educator’s if there is a disagreement.
The selection and goal-setting process involves determining which measure most closely aligns to the educator’s job responsibilities and the school’s goals.
20
Key Changes From Year 1
Targeted support for schools
Differentiated observations based on performance
Including special education students in individual growth scores
Reducing the weight of growth for non-tested teachers
More choices for individual growth scores
21
Key Changes Upcoming
More rigorous evaluator training and certification process
Mild revisions to teacher evaluation rubric
Administrator evaluation process fixes
Administrator evaluation rubric revision underway
22
Top Five Lessons Learned
1. Principal time demands are real
2. High-quality evaluation demands highly skilled observers
3. Balance pressure points with strong supports
4. Data is KING5. Best practice is best practice at every level: implement,
get feedback, study and improve
23
Resources
E-mail:Questions: [email protected] Feedback: [email protected]
Websites:CODE Data System: https://code-education.com/tennesseebpc/NIET Best Practices Portal: Portal with hours of video and professional development resources. www.nietbestpractices.org TEAM website: www.team-tn.orgWeekly TEAM Updates
24