Teacher Growth and Evaluation Model Teacher Evaluation Work Group Model Feedback and Revision November 27 th, 2012 “Leading for educational excellence and equity. Every day for every one.”

Meeting Updates TODAY: Networking via Hope Street Group website Small and large group discussion, feedback, recommendations December 7th: Leadership meeting. Ongoing revision. Online Collaboration Nov 27 th – Dec 13 th Revision proposals, editing suggestions, discussions December 13 th : Approval of Default Model for Commissioner. education.state.mn.us 2

See welcome sent today –Login information –Change password –Update profile –Webinar training: Thursday at 4:30 (Optional) Guest access Brief walkthrough Hope Street Group – Collaboration Website education.state.mn.us 3

4 3 Groups of Teachers Ongoing Development Value-added model Teacher of record Tested areas Linkages Availability of data Draft Model: Student Learning and Achievement Component

education.state.mn.us 5 Guide for setting SLG 3 types of goals Broad Need Targeted Need Shared Performance Draft Model: Student Learning and Achievement Component

4 performance categories –Exemplary—4 –Effective—3 –Development needed—2 –Unsatisfactory—1 Rating in each component based on evidence and professional judgment (Holistic Approach) (Note—Value-added=TBD) –Teacher practice –Student learning and achievement –Student engagement Component ratings weighted to calculate summative score and final performance category (Numerical Approach) Unsatisfactory final performance rating triggers support under clauses Draft Model: Scoring Model for Summative Evaluations education.state.mn.us 6

—Exemplary —Effective —Development Needed —Unsatisfactory ComponentComponent Ratings Component Weights (Multiply by Weights) Products Teacher Practice 3 (Effective) Student Learning and Achievement 4 (Exemplary) Student Engagement 4 (Exemplary) Add Products for Summative Score3.50 Draft Model: Scoring Model for Summative Evaluations

4 performance categories –Exemplary –Effective –Development needed –Unsatisfactory Rating in each component based on evidence and professional judgment (Holistic Approach) (Note—Value-added=TBD) –Teacher practice –Student learning and achievement –Student engagement Component ratings weighted to calculate summative score and final performance category (Numerical Approach) Unsatisfactory final performance rating triggers support under clauses Draft Model: Scoring Model for Summative Evaluations education.state.mn.us 8

Primary revisions since November 15 –Edits to performance categories and descriptions and to roles document –Removed requirement that summative evaluators be non- probationary –Revised scoring guidelines for student engagement component –Removed annual recommendations from peer reviewer(s) –Removed option for summative self-evaluation by portfolio in lieu of summative evaluation by a summative evaluator Clarifying Questions? Draft Model: Revisions and Clarifying Questions education.state.mn.us 9

10 Proposed Revisions What are you wanting to change? Why are you wanting to change it? What is the solution you propose? What is the work group’s decision point? Use the proposal form provided. Subcommittee discussions –Clarifying questions –Draft proposals for revisions Mixed group discussions –Clarifying questions –Review of proposals for revisions from subcommittee discussions –New proposals for revisions Whole group discussion –Review of proposals for revisions –Approval of proposals for revisions Work Group Review and Revision Process

The goal is consensus. (1)This decision is best for students and teachers. (2) I am OK with the group’s decision and will not work against it. Prioritize proposals for revisions Review individual proposals –Initial responses (5-point response scale) –Discussion if needed –Final decision if needed (4-point response scale) Approved revisions made and posted at Hope Street website Large Group Review: Prioritize Proposals and Discuss education.state.mn.us 11