The Statewide Approach to Educator Effectiveness

S.B. 191: Great Teachers and Leaders

Katy Anthes, PhD

Executive Director of Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education

March 6, 2012

Today’s Objectives

• Provide the rationale and philosophy of the

evaluation system

• Give you a high-level overview of the principal

and assistant principal evaluation system

• Provide information on the pilot process and the

state roll-out timeline

• Offer support to you-- as you would like-- on

your next steps

Policy & Practice Integration: How it all fits together:

Driving Questions:

The same

questions we ask

in PLC’s

What do we want

them to know and

be able to do?

How will we know if

expectations are

met?

How will we create responsive

systems to support their

learning?

Students Colorado Academic

Standards & English

language proficiency

standards

Assessments:

Summative and

Formative

• Multi-tiered systems of

supports: RTI &PBIS

• Standards Based Curriculum

• Individual Student Plans (IEP,

ILP, ALP, SRP)

Educators Professional practice

standards

Performance

evaluations

• Induction & Mentoring

• Instructional Leadership &

Feedback

• Targeted goal creation

• Professional development

plans

Schools/Districts Performance

indicators

School and district

performance

frameworks

• Unified Improvement Planning

(UIP)

CAP4K-

Standards-

212

Educator

Effectiveness 191

System of

accountability

& support- 163

Evaluation is not an add on– it is a critical component of healthy organizations

Today we

are

focusing

here

Guiding Principles of State Evaluation System

1. Data should inform decisions, but human judgment will always be an essential component of evaluations.

2. The implementation and evaluation of the system must embody continuous improvement.

3. The purpose of the system is to provide meaningful and credible feedback that improves performance.

4. The development and implementation of educator evaluation systems must continue to involve all stakeholders in a collaborative process.

5. Educator evaluations must take place within a larger system that is aligned and supportive.

Critical Effects of S.B. 10-191

• Requires statewide minimum standards for what it means to be an

“effective” teacher or principal

• Requires that all teachers and principals be evaluated at least 50 percent on

the academic growth of their students

• Prohibits forced placement of teachers

• Makes non-probationary status “portable”

• Requires annual evaluation of all teachers and principals

• Changes non-probationary status from one that is earned based upon years

of service to one that is earned based upon three consecutive years of

demonstrated effectiveness

• Provides that non-probationary status may be lost based upon consecutive

years of ineffectiveness.

Continuous Improvement

State model system developed

Local evaluation systems

implemented

CDE collects data State Council

makes recommendations

Rules reviewed and revised

District uses State Scoring Framework Matrix to determine Performance Standard

District aggregates measures

Aggregate professional practice scores into a single score on Quality Standards I-V

Aggregate student growth measures into a single score on Quality Standard VI

District decides data collection procedures

Standards I-V: Must occur with enough frequency to create a credible body of evidence

Standard VI: Must occur with enough frequency to create a credible body of evidence

District decides weights

On each Standard I-V districts may weight priority standards more

Standard VI must count for at least 50% of total score

District decides measures

Standards I-V: use observation plus at least one other method

Standard VI: select multiple measures appropriate to teaching assignment

Principal Quality Standards

I: Principals demonstrate

strategic leadership.

II: Principals demonstrate instructional leadership.

III: Principals demonstrate school culture and equity

leadership.

IV: Principals demonstrate human resource leadership.

V: Principals demonstrate managerial leadership.

VI: Principals demonstrate

external development leadership.

VII: Principals demonstrate

leadership around student academic

growth.

Teacher Quality Standards

I: Teachers demonstrate mastery of and pedagogical

expertise in the content they teach.

The elementary teacher is an expert in literacy and mathematics and is knowledgeable in all other content that he or she teaches.

The secondary teacher has knowledge of literacy and mathematics and is an expert in his or her content endorsement area(s).

II: Teachers establish a safe, inclusive, and

respectful learning environment for a

diverse population of students.

III: Teachers plan and deliver effective

instruction and create an environment that

facilitates learning for their students.

IV: Teachers reflect on their practice.

V:Teachers demonstrate leadership.

VI: Teachers take responsibility for

student academic growth.

Components of the Principal Rubric

Standard I: Principals Demonstrate Strategic Leadership

Not Evident Partially Proficient Proficient Accomplished Exemplary

a. School Vision, Mission and Strategic Goals: Principals develop the vision, mission, values, beliefs and goals of the school, collaboratively determining

the processes used to establish these attributes, and facilitating their integration into the life of the school community.

Vision, mission, values,

beliefs and goals of school

are:

Not evident or

familiar to staff and

other stakeholders. Developed by school

administrators

working in relative

isolation. Not integrated into

the life of the school

community.

Vision, mission, values, beliefs

and strategic goals of school

are:

Developed through a

collaborative process

with staff and other

stakeholder groups. Publicly available at

the school. Part of routine school

communications with

staff and other

stakeholders. Routinely updated.

. . . and

Establishes strategic goals for

students and staff that are:

Focused on student

achievement. Based on the analysis of

multiple sources of

information. Aligned with district

priorities. Measurable. Rigorous. Concrete.

. . . and

Staff incorporate

identified strategies

in their instructional

plans to assure that

students achieve

expected outcomes.

. . . and

Staff and other

stakeholders take

leadership roles in

updating the school’s

vision, mission, and

strategic goals. Staff members

assume

responsibility for

implementing the

school’s vision,

mission, and

strategic goals.

Quality

Standard

Element

of the

standard

Rating

levels

Professional

Practices

Principal and Teacher

Performance Evaluation Ratings

After CDE develops the state model system and an evaluation scoring matrix,

the State Board will adopt definitions for each rating.

Highly Effective

Effective

Partially Effective

Ineffective

Implementation of SB 191: Update

2011-12:

• CDE has selected 27 pilot districts to pilot the state evaluation model

elements.

• CDE developed and created the principal /assistant principal rubric and user

guide for the professional practice portion of the evaluation rating

• CDE has rolled out the principal/assistant principal professional practice

side of the evaluation system (50% of the total evaluation rating) in our pilot

districts.

• CDE has trained all 27 districts on the Principal/Assistant Principal quality

standards and the rubric instrument for coming up with the professional

practices rating (50% of the total evaluation)

• CDE has drafted a Teacher rubric for beta testing and feedback in several

pilot districts this spring to prepare for full teacher pilot roll out next year. We

are currently conducting many focus groups on the teacher rubric

Implementation of SB 191 update, Cont.

• CDE has launched a resource bank that identifies research, processes,

tools and policies that a district or BOCES may use to implement the

evaluation system.

• CDE has launched an Educator Effectiveness Newsletter to update the

state on implementation efforts

• CDE has created a process for beginning the work of defining the student

growth side of the evaluation. That will be determined through a regional

process with experts, teachers and staff to provide guidance and more

clarity to the field on what growth measures could be used for evaluation

purposes in a fair manner.

Pilot Period Is used to develop, identify and/or test

the following:

Principal and teacher rubrics

Measures of student academic growth

Method to collect teacher input for principal evaluations

Method to collect student and family perception data

Method to aggregating measures and assign final

evaluation ratings

CDE monitoring methods

Year One 2011-12 Development

and Beta Testing

•CDE ACTIVITIES

•Develop State Model Systems for teachers and principals

•Beta-testing of rubrics and tools

•Develop technical guidelines

•Provide differentiated support for districts

•Populate and launch online Resource Bank

•Develop state data collection and monitoring system

Year Two 2012-13 Pilot and Rollout

•CDE ACTIVITIES

•Validate teacher and principal rubrics

• Support pilot districts through resources, training, tools, etc.

•Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned

•Analyze pilot district data and make adjustments as needed

•Provide targeted support to non-pilot districts

•Continue to populate Resource Bank

•Develop evaluation system for other licensed personnel

Year Three 2013-14 Pilot and

Rollout

•CDE ACTIVITIES

•Begin statewide rollout of teacher/principal systems

• Support ALL districts through resources, trainings, tools, etc.

•Convene pilot districts to share lessons learned

•Analyze pilot data and make adjustments to the system as needed

•Continue to populate Resource Bank

Year Four 2014-15 Full Statewide

Implementation

•CDE ACTIVITIES

• Finalize statewide implementation of teacher/principal systems

•Continue support to districts via resources and training

•Ensure there are evaluator training courses throughout the state

•Analyze data and make adjustments as needed

•Make recommendations to SBE

Timeline for Continued Implementation of SB 191

2013-14:

• New performance evaluation system for teachers and principals based on quality

standards will be implemented statewide.

• Teachers & Principals will be evaluated based on quality standards.

• Demonstrated effectiveness or ineffectiveness will begin to be considered in the

acquisition of probationary or non-probationary status.

2014-15:

• New performance evaluation system based on quality standards will be finalized on a

statewide basis.

• Demonstrated effectiveness or ineffectiveness will be considered in the acquisition or

loss of probationary or non-probationary status.

Assurances

Collected annually, beginning July 2013

Districts will provide assurance that they

are implementing the state model system

or a locally-developed system that meets

all statutory and regulatory requirements.

Required Components of

Evaluation Systems Purposes of evaluation system

Positions to be evaluated and title of evaluator(s)

Standards and criteria for evaluating licensed personnel

Frequency and duration of evaluations

Process for validating the evaluation methods used

System using Principal Professional Performance Plans

Note: these components must be included in both the state model system and all

locally-developed evaluation systems.

Next Steps

• We are here to support you in a number of

ways: – Face-to-face trainings

– Transition Guide (on the web) New!

– User guides, templates and electronic recording

templates on web

– The continued development of tools, templates and

frameworks to help you implement the system while

making it your own.

– Q & A anytime- you are our priority

Contact Information

• Katy Anthes

Executive Director of Educator Effectiveness anthes_k@cde.state.co.us

• Toby King

Evaluation and Support king_t@cde.state.co.us

• Michael Gradoz Evaluation and Support gradoz_m@cde.state.co.us

• Britt Wilkenfeld

Data Specialist wilkenfeld_b@cde.state.co.us

• For more information, please visit:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/EducatorEffectiveness/

Pilot then peer

review

National Researchers

I: Jan-Mar 2012 II: Jun-Aug 2012

I: Feb-May 2012 II: July-Nov 2012

I &II: Feb-Dec 2012

I & II: Aug 2012- Aug 2014

I: Aug 2013 II: Aug 2014

Researchers gather existing fair, valid

and reliable measures for Consideration.

Technical Steering Committee creates frameworks and design principles for collaboratives

to use in reviewing and creating measures.

Committee

reviews recommendations of collaboratives.

Piloting and peer review of

measures.

Aug 2012-Aug 2013: Cohort I piloting & peer

review

January 2013-Aug 2014: Cohort II

piloting & peer review

Measures placed in

online Education

Effectiveness Resource Bank for voluntary

use.

Collaboratives use protocol to review

researchers’ measures for

feasibility, utility and gaps.

Prepare to fill

gaps.

Provide recommendations

to Technical Steering

Committee.

Cohort I & II: Flow Chart of Work

Colorado Content

Collaboratives

Technical Steering

Committee

Future Work Bank