State Board of Education Workshop June 24, 2014 EDUCATOR EVALUATION ALIGNED TO COLLEGE AND CAREER READY STANDARDS

 Welcome and Introductions  Overview and background information  Panelist presentations  Charlotte Danielson, Framework for Teaching  Amy Hammerle, The New Teacher Project, Core Rubric  Sarah Coon, Hendy Ave., Teaching Excellence Framework  Lamont Browne, East Side Charter School  Panelist Q&A  Closing and Next Steps AGENDA

 Under 14 Del. C. §1270 the requirements of the Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) are outlined.  (a) An educator must receive at least 1 Delaware Performance Appraisal System II (DPAS II) evaluation annually. For purposes of this subchapter only, the term "educator" shall also include specialists who practice in Delaware public schools, whether or not they are licensed and certified by the Department. The evaluation must be consistent with the Delaware Professional Teaching Standards and the Delaware Administrators' Standards, and must otherwise be in accordance with the criteria and requirements of this section  Requires no more than 5 components and a strong focus on student improvement with 1 component dedicated exclusively and weighted at least as high as any other component DELAWARE CODE REGARDING EDUCATOR EVALUATION

 §1270 (f) Provides for the opportunity for a local district, vo- tech district, or charter school to use a locally developed or adopted evaluation system and waive the requirements of DPAS II.  System must be as rigorous and educationally sound as DPAS II, provide for evaluation of educators by using student growth as measured by multiple measures over the course of a school year and contain a mechanism for certifying evaluators for quality control  If applicable, it must be the product of the collective bargaining process pursuant to Chapter 40 as well as community review.  Lastly, it must be approved by the Department of Education before a waiver from DPAS II will be granted.  Important note: Nothing in code prevents a district from administering other educator evaluations in addition to DPAS II, as long as it is reported to the Department ALTERNATE EVALUATION SYSTEM

 As of September 2013, more than 50% require annual evaluations of teachers  35 states and DC public schools require the use of student achievement as a significant or most significant factor in teacher evaluations  No one way to combine measures with varying weights  States use Student survey, classroom observations, Student Achievement data USE OF TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS

RECENT STUDY FROM THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION Report-PDF.pdf

 Delaware  Ohio  Tennessee  Louisiana  Massachusetts  North Carolina VARIETY OF INITIATIVES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BE STUDIED

 How is the evaluation system developed?  What are the goals? Do they align with your strategic plan? Do you have the resources and capacity to develop your own system? What key stakeholders will be involved in the development?  What is included in the Evaluation system?  What are the metrics? What are the weights? How accurate are the results? Are the measures valid for all teachers? How often are teachers observed? How is evaluator capacity maintained and developed? What is the rubric and what research supports it?  How are the results used?  Do teachers receive and provide feedback? Do results improve instructional quality? Doe results inform personnel decisions? Are results made public? QUESTIONS FOR POLICY LEADERS

Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching TEACHER EVALUATION IN A COMMON CORE AND COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS ERA

© TNTP 2013 Fixing Classroom Observations Shifting focus to rigorous instruction and student outcomes Delaware Board of Education, June 2014

/ 32 We propose bringing focus and coherence to classroom observations, so they support true ratings and consistent feedback. MUST-HAVE #1: ASSESS WHAT’S BEING TAUGHT, NOT JUST HOW IT’S TAUGHT Ask if teachers are picking the right content to teach. MUST-HAVE #2: PUT OBSERVERVATION RUBRICS ON A DIET Score what counts, rather than counting everything.

/ 33 Must-Have #1: Assess what’s being taught, not just how it is being taught. Give lesson content the weight it deserves. Use the language of the Common Core standards to assess what students are being asked to accomplish. Give observers better tools and reference materials. MUST-HAVE #1: ASSESS WHAT’S TAUGHT Pitfall to avoid: Evaluating objectives only. Observers need to focus on how each lesson helps students demonstrate mastery of a standard, not just whether the teacher wrote that standard on the board

/ 34 Must-Have #2: Put observation rubrics on a diet. Rate a small number of outcomes – probably no more than five. Score student outcomes and responses, not teacher strategies. Track teacher strategies and techniques for development, but don’t score them. Simplify existing rubrics. MUST-HAVE #2: PUT RUBRICS ON A DIET Pitfall to avoid: Using a separate rubric as a long-term solution. Common Core represents a major shift in expectations about what and how teachers should teach, which will require a major shift in observation rubrics

/ 35 States and districts can begin to consider these issues in their observations right away. STREAMLINE Remove anything in the observation rubric that can’t be directly observed in a classroom visit (e.g., professionalism, continuing education). ANALYZE Analyze existing observation ratings to identify competencies that co-vary, and condense those that measure the same aspects into a single competency. PRIORITIZE Ensure that lesson content carries significant weight, so that an engaging lesson taught at the wrong grade level won’t be rated “effective.” SUPPORT Collect and provide observers and their managers with formative data on the quantity and the quality of feedback they provide. Over time, factor this upward feedback from teachers into accountability for observers.

/ 36 For more information, visit: tntp.org/fixingobservations

/ 37 Based on these principals, we developed a streamlined observation rubric focused on student outcomes – the TNTP Core Rubric. The TNTP Core Rubric Focus on content and student outcomes.

/ 38 Through ACE, we strive to create the fullest possible picture of our teachers’ performance using multiple measures. Research shows classroom observations are valid predictors of teacher effectiveness. Teachers are observed at least 4 times, with performance rated according to the ACE Instructional Framework/TNTP Core. Classroom Observations Principals will rate teacher performance relative to other new teachers they have worked with throughout their careers. Principal Ratings The survey uses research-tested questions predictive of teacher effectiveness. If teachers work with very young students (grades K-2) or with students in moderate-to-severe special education settings, they do not administer student surveys. Student Surveys The best measure of effectiveness is the academic growth of one’s students. Where available, we will incorporate data from state-produced value-added reports to analyze teachers’ actual impact on student learning over the course of the school year. Student Achievement Data

/ 39 Performance on each ACE measure is mapped to the performance scale below, earning between 1 and 5 points for each ACE component. Each component is weighted and combined to calculate the final ACE rating. Classroom Observations Principal Ratings Student Surveys Student Achievement Ineffective 1.00 – 1.99 points Much worse than 1 point 2.99 or lower 1 point Ineffective 1 point Minimally Effective 2.00 – 2.79 points Worse than 2 points 3.00 – points Minimally Effective 2 points Developing 2.80 – 3.59 points Same as 3 points 3.50 – points Developing 3 points Proficient 3.60 – 4.29 points Better than 4 points 4.00 – points Proficient 4 points Skillful 4.30 – 5.00 points Much better than 5 points 4.50 – points Skillful 5 points

/ 40 Adding it up: Four Scoring Scenarios Scenario 1: Classroom Observations + Principal Ratings Observations (60%) Principal Rating (40%) 0.60 * 3.15 points = 1.89 points (Observations) * 4 points = 1.60 points (Principal Rating) 3.49 points ( Final ACE Score) Scenario 2: Classroom Observations + Principal Ratings + Student Surveys Student Surveys (30%) Observations (40%) Principal Rating (30%) 0.40 * 3.15 points = 1.26 points (Classroom Observations) * 3 points = 0.90 points (Principal Rating) * 2 points = 0.60 points (Student Surveys) 2.76 points ( Final ACE Score)

/ 41 Adding it up: Four Scoring Scenarios, cont’d 0.25 * 3.15 points = 0.79 points (Observations) * 3 points = 0.60 points (Principal Rating) * 2 points = 0.40 points (Student Surveys) * 4 points = 1.45 points (Achievement) 3.24 points ( Final ACE Score) Student Achievement (35%) Principal Rating (20%) Observations (25%) Student Surveys (20%) Scenario 3: Classroom Observations + Principal Ratings + Student Surveys + Student Achievement Data Scenario 4: Classroom Observations + Principal Ratings + Student Achievement Data Observations (35%) Student Achievement (35%) Principal Rating (30%) 0.35 * 3.15 points = 1.10 points (Observations) * 4 points = 1.40 points (Student Achievement) * 3 points = 0.90 points (Principal Rating) 3.4 points ( Final ACE Score)

/ 42 tntp.org facebook.com/thenewteacherproject twitter.com/tntp

Teaching Excellence Framework DE Charter Collaborative Summary

Agenda  Goals of the Teaching Excellence Framework  Design and Implementation Process  Key Components  Results 44

Develop Excellence Celebrate Excellence Define Excellence 45 Increase teacher recruitment Increase teacher effectiveness Increase teacher retention BIG GOAL: Greater student success

Agenda  Goals of the Teaching Excellence Framework  Design and Implementation Process  Key Components  Results 46

Collaborative Effort to Design, Implement and Build School Leader Skill 47

High Level Timeline SPRING 2013 Collaborative formed and alternative evaluation model developed FALL 2013 Implementation of new system FALL 2014 Start of teacher career pathway 48 ON-GOING Leader training, teacher communications, teacher feedback, system improvements

Agenda  Goals of the Teaching Excellence Framework  Design and Implementation Process  Key Components  Results 49

The Teaching Excellence Framework maintains the same five components as DPAS II 1.Planning and Preparation 2.Classroom Environment 3.Instruction and Assessment 4.Professional Responsibilities 5.Student Achievement 50

Key Changes from DPAS II 10 observations a year minute observations Improved observation debrief protocol Professional Responsibilities (Comp IV) measured with student, parent and peer surveys More specific ratings (5 levels of effectiveness instead of 2) Revised rubric 51

Rubric Criteria Rigorous Clear and concise Focused on student actions Aligned to Common Core 52

Rubric Development Process Achievement First Danielson 2011 Hillsborough Louisiana Montgomery County Newark Rhode Island Teach For America Tennessee Washington DC 53 Review of national exemplars and drafting by consultant Approval by collaborative principals Feedback from teachers and leaders to improve for next year

Sample Rubric Language 54 Teacher’s content knowledge is completely factually accurate. At least 95% of students mastered the lesson goal as evidenced by the ticket out the door or other student work.

More Specific Feedback to Teachers 55

Agenda  Goals of the Teaching Excellence Framework  Design and Implementation Process  Key Components  Results 56

Increased Rigor 57

Greater Differentiation for Development and Evaluation 58 DPAS II: Teaching Excellence Framework Individual comp 1-4 ratings Combined comp 1-4 ratings

Accuracy: Observations are correlated with student achievement results 59 Lesson observation data Component 5 (Student achievement data)

We Redefined Evaluation into Coaching 60

61 But what do teachers think about this change?

95% of teachers feel good to very positive about the shift to the Teaching Excellence Framework this year 62

Sample Feedback from Teachers “I think the rubric gives clear expectations and allows us to strive for higher goals.” “Our school leaders provide thoughtful, constructive criticism in our conversations.” “Observations are so frequent that there is little anxiety around them.” 63

More Feedback from Teachers 87% of teachers say the Teacher Excellence Framework defines teaching excellence extremely or very well 88% of teachers feel the observation feedback has been extremely or very valuable for their professional growth 82% of teachers say they can articulate strengths and priorities for development following their debrief 64

65

APPENDIX 66

Rubric Components DPAS II RubricTeaching Excellence Rubric PLANNING AND PREPARATION 1a. Selecting Instructional Goals 1b. Designing Coherent Instruction 1c. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy 1d. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students 1e. Designing Student Assessments PLANNING AND PREPARATION (25%) 1a. Instructional Goals 1b. Instructional Design CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT 2a. Managing Classroom Procedures 2b. Managing Student Behavior 2c. Establishing a Culture for Learning 2d. Organizing Physical Space CLASSROOM CULTURE (25%) 2a. Student Engagement 2b. Student Behavior INSTRUCTION 3a. Engaging Students in Learning 3b. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness 3c. Communicating Clearly and Accurately 3d. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques 3e. Using Assessment in Instruction INSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT (35%) 3a. Content Knowledge 3b. Rigorous Questioning and Response 3c. Checks for Understanding 3d. Assessment of Student Mastery 3e. Student Learning PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 4a. Communicating with Families 4b. Recording Data in a Student Record System 4c. Growing and Developing Professionally 4d. Reflecting on Professional Practice PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES (not in observation) (15%) 4a. Reflection and Development of Professional Practice 4b. Student and Family Relationships 4c. Contributions to School Culture 4d. Attendance and Timeliness 67